Trickle down economics is a lie, the proof !

[acidhead]

So again I offer up a solution: repeal legal tender laws and welcome into existence competition among currency in a nations economy. Let the market determine the best currency which curbs inflation. Let the people decide what currency they choose to accept and trade with others. The current currency is horribly devalued and getting worse everyday.

Edited April 28, 2014 by acidhead

[acidhead]

You wont find an economist who truly believes that the money doesn't flow to the top. Whatever you want to call it... it's a strawman argument to suggest in the first place. For all those who sit around moaning and complaining that the money flows to the top do yourself a favor: quit working for somebody else and start your own business and prove it otherwise. Create a business model that doesn't funnel to the top and succeeds. And while you're at it purchase the 652 page book in the OP and when you're done reading it ask yourself why you wasted your time reading something everybody already knows in the first place.

[Yamato]

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

Exactly! And anything that involves govt spending involves taxing. So I think you're coming around! Indeed people do have incentive to solve their own problems, and they're not all brainless drones completely reliant on govt to change the world for them.

[Frank Merton]

"A rising tide lifts all boats." If you want to deal with poverty you must first have a growing economy. The problem as I see it is that this is necessary but not sufficient. Still, it is necessary, and redistributionist economic policies tend to stifle economic growth.

In other words, let people get rich. The lesson of this seems to have been learned in China and Vietnam but not in the States. The politics of economic equality can work in elections but not in a real economy, and largely is just the politics of envy. Deal with excessive wealth on a generational basis, where huge estates (really huge) are taxed away over the generations. Then tax luxuries heavily.

[Leonardo]

Surely the great minds of today can come up with a better econmic model that the outdated crumbling model with have now.

There is no possible economic theory which can produce an increase in overall (not average) wealth without fairly draconian govt regulation. It is a myth that the freer the market the more people will see an improvement in overall wealth (in real terms), because all such 'free-market' models invariably assume a pyramidal structure.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

A balance of a planned economy with free enterprise sounds best. Any suggestions how to combine the two?

[Space Commander Travis]

This is what happens when societies are based on the pursuit of something that doesn't exist.

[Guest]

A balance of a planned economy with free enterprise sounds best. Any suggestions how to combine the two?

Germany.

If you want a model of how to create a productive, relatively fair and balanced economy then study Germany in detail. Lots of appropriate interventions and lots of control of how capitol is used - but a government who is willing and able to support industry to achieve big strategic objectives without wasting money.

The USA/Anglo model is designed to favour the rich - the German model is designed to favour the nation.

Br Cornelius

[Leonardo]

This is what happens when societies are based on the pursuit of something that doesn't exist.

We have two forms of abstract govt, theocracy and economicracy. In both the gullible public are led to believe in something which isn't real for the sake of keeping those with authority, in authority.

[RAOK]

There is no possible economic theory which can produce an increase in overall (not average) wealth without fairly draconian govt regulation. It is a myth that the freer the market the more people will see an improvement in overall wealth (in real terms), because all such 'free-market' models invariably assume a pyramidal structure.

I don't adovate a completely Free Market system nor unfettered captialism nor communism. But I would like to see a model where risk is rewarded or penalised (not rewarded and propped up), where companies pay at least 'cost of living' wages, where companies pay taxes appropriately in all countries in which they operate, where disguised subsides to businesses (e.g. government benefits to low paid workers) are called for what they are, where those who gain most from the country's infrastructure, whether businesses or individuals pay most to support that infrastructure.

Where resources used in prodution are largely renewable and where environmental impacts are minimised. Where managers and business owners have the right to make decisions but where the rights of the workers are both considered and protected.

At a broader level: a system in which the necessities of life and the basic commodities are not taxed, a system in which access to healthcare and support services for the vunerable is availabe free at the point of delivery.

A new way of calculating cost of living pay rises to workers (2% to someone on 20,000 is mighty different to 2% to someone on 150,000 - except that in reality the latter is more likely to get 5%). I take the point that the person on 150+ may well be a high flyer, bringing a lot into the company or business, but without the labour of those on the low wages, he / she would have nothing to sell.

Perhaps I am suggesting something akin to Capitalism with morals, and long term economic policies by government for the greater good of the planet and the people rather than of businesses and the the elite.

I do of course recognise there are difficulities and hard issues and problems - but let the economists start with an ambition to do better - expose the weaknesses and problems inherent in a more equal society work at ways to circumvent them.

[Yamato]

This is what happens when societies are based on the pursuit of something that doesn't exist.

Things like "equality" and "full employment" and *gulp*, God?

because all such 'free-market' models invariably assume a pyramidal structure.

So do governments. What's the difference? Why do you run into your pyramid to flatten someone else's?

[Guest]

So do governments. What's the difference? Why do you run into your pyramid to flatten someone else's?

It called representative democracy - an idea worth holding onto don't you think.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

It called representative democracy - an idea worth holding onto don't you think.

Br Cornelius

Government isn't called "representative democracy". There's all kinds of government and it's all the same pyramid you think is a valid reason to only criticize free markets. Sorry but there is no exclusivity there. There is no difference. If you want to bash free markets, find something that doesn't also apply to your solutions for it.

[Space Commander Travis]

Government isn't called "representative democracy". There's all kinds of government and it's all the same pyramid you think is a valid reason to only criticize free markets. Sorry but there is no exclusivity there. There is no difference. If you want to bash free markets, find something that doesn't also apply to your solutions for it.

Are you saying that everything should be left to the free market, and Government should keep their noses out?

[Guest]

Are you saying that everything should be left to the free market, and Government should keep their noses out?

He seems to be, but he can't seem to understand that that simply replaces one tyrant with another - but takes away the representative democracy element of the mix.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

It's mighty capitalistic of this author to publish a book and put it for sale on a global market at over $20 a pop. He'd better hoard whatever money he makes from it or else he'll disprove himself. Anyways, has anyone even read the book? Hope the op has or he's just mimicking the article and reviews. It's a only 3.5 star book on amazon and the review section isn't too different from from this thread. Mixed opinions abroad and I'm sure it's hardly the "tome of our economic times" as the op link put it.

I guess I don't know enough to argue trickle down theory on a national level but if it weren't for people with money I'd be doing a lot less work. So much of the money I make initially comes from a rich guys bank account. All the money you and I spend trickles down in some way to someone. Heck, for my business I spend enough in one year at Home Depot, every year, to pay the annual wages of at least two or more part time workers or at least for one manager.

From the rich guy, to me, to the businesses I buy from, to their employees.... Is that not trickle down?

[questionmark]

Government isn't called "representative democracy". There's all kinds of government and it's all the same pyramid you think is a valid reason to only criticize free markets. Sorry but there is no exclusivity there. There is no difference. If you want to bash free markets, find something that doesn't also apply to your solutions for it.

Could it be that you are confusing a failed government policy (trickle down) with an economic system? In a free market there is no patent protection, in most cases not even legal protection (unless by the rule of the fist) without a government. To insure access to all, free and fair competition you need a government.

It is not like we did not have a "free market" before, and the end of the song was a crash caused by the robber barons and monopolists.

A market does not work without a government. A free market does not work without a free government, and the only free government I know of is democratic (either direct or by representation).

[Leonardo]

I guess I don't know enough to argue trickle down theory on a national level but if it weren't for people with money I'd be doing a lot less work. So much of the money I make initially comes from a rich guys bank account.

This is completely wrong.

Money starts with govt, not 'rich peoples bank accounts'. Most of the work (production) that takes place is because of the low to low-middle income bracket - who make up the majority of the populace and so are the largest consumer group.

What you wrote is simply apologetics for the wealth divide.

[F3SS]

This is completely wrong.

Money starts with govt, not 'rich peoples bank accounts'. Most of the work (production) that takes place is because of the low to low-middle income bracket - who make up the majority of the populace and so are the largest consumer group.

What you wrote is simply apologetics for the wealth divide.

Don't be so crass. I was giving perspective and asking a question.

[Yamato]

Are you saying that everything should be left to the free market, and Government should keep their noses out?

No, simply to have a valid reason to criticize free markets that don't also apply to govts when you're appealing to govt to solve the problem. Surely you see the contradiction?

[Yamato]

Could it be that you are confusing a failed government policy (trickle down) with an economic system? In a free market there is no patent protection,

Patents are protected, so that's not the problem, and thus free markets aren't the problem.

A market does not work without a government. A free market does not work without a free government, and the only free government I know of is democratic (either direct or by representation).

All true, and yet pyramidal govts still aren't solutions for pyramidal markets. Or else pyramidal isn't a true objection if it's fine for him but not for me.

[RAOK]

It called representative democracy - an idea worth holding onto don't you think.

Br Cornelius

Democracy especially representative democracy is a great ideal but does it exist anywhere on the planet? - certainly not in the UK or the USA or Ireland for that matter IMO.

Its not enough just to change the economic model - we also have to change the model for democractic government - to one that is - well - democratic.

Edited April 28, 2014 by RAOK

[Space Commander Travis]

.

Patents are protected, so that's not the problem, and thus free markets aren't the problem.

But it took Government to introduce the laws to do that. Look at how it was in the golden age of entrepreneurship in the 19th c; absolute anarchy, with "entrepreneurs" stealing other people's ideas left, right & centre and getting rich out of them.

[Guest]

Yamota, there is no such thing as a free market without laws and governments to enforce the law of contract. Corporation's know this full well and would never want what they claim to want - a world free of Government regulations.

However Corporations want the benefits of a free market without ponying up the costs and that is what they cynically lobby for every day of the week. Hence they are trying to set up extra sovereign courts to bully sovereign countries around whilst relying on those sovereign governments to impose the decision of those courts.

There is a fundamental logical inconsistency in your stance on free markets and governments. You cannot have one without the other and believing that you can is just wishful thinking.

Br Cornelius

[acidhead]

Yamota, there is no such thing as a free market without laws and governments to enforce the law of contract. Corporation's know this full well and would never want what they claim to want - a world free of Government regulations.

However Corporations want the benefits of a free market without ponying up the costs and that is what they cynically lobby for every day of the week. Hence they are trying to set up extra sovereign courts to bully sovereign countries around whilst relying on those sovereign governments to impose the decision of those courts.

There is a fundamental logical inconsistency in your stance on free markets and governments. You cannot have one without the other and believing that you can is just wishful thinking.

Br Cornelius

Just curious...

Did you just compare freedom in America to freedom in China?