Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trickle down economics is a lie, the proof !


Guest Br Cornelius

Recommended Posts

They're certainly the number one world leader in arrogance and incompetence. Their arrogance might be bearable if their products and services worked properly, but Google is synonymous with the words "Oops! An error occurred", or "Oops! Google was unable to". They only got where they are today by buying up companies that had innovative ideas, and having bought them, the only thing they're interested in about them is making advertising revenue out of them, or using it as a way to fraudulently boost the figures for people using their gimmicks like Google +, by forcing people who have a youtube account to also have a Google + account. They' also thoroughly ******** up Google Earth with their pointless and gimmicky "3D" effect, which has the effect of just making everything blurry and low resolution. In short, they mess up everything they buy, and their basic products are hopelessly unreliable. They're stupid, arrogant and incompetent.

Edited by Admiral Rhubarb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that patronising "Oops!", which I presume is supposed to be "friendly", is the icing on the cake, perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're certainly the number one world leader in arrogance and incompetence. Their arrogance might be bearable if their products and services worked properly, but Google is synonymous with the words "Oops! An error occurred", or "Oops! Google was unable to". They only got where they are today by buying up companies that had innovative ideas, and having bought them, the only thing they're interested in about them is making advertising revenue out of them, or using it as a way to fraudulently boost the figures for people using their gimmicks like Google +, by forcing people who have a youtube account to also have a Google + account. They' also thoroughly ******** up Google Earth with their pointless and gimmicky "3D" effect, which has the effect of just making everything blurry and low resolution. In short, they mess up everything they buy, and their basic products are hopelessly unreliable. They're stupid, arrogant and incompetent.

Did you get fired from Google or something? You are one of the only people I hear saying these things about Google. I think Google is a great company! They have come up with brilliant products! Name a better equivalent to Google earth? Microsoft from my experience is far more error prone that Google is.

Also, do you realize how complex these products are? It is not easy to write a computer program that runs smoothly without any hiccups. Google is one of the best, but like any computer company they have errors and glitches, just part of the business. You seem to really have a chip on your shoulder towards Google. If you can do it better, then do it! I will be the first to sign up for your new internet browser and software that will make Google earth obsolete! ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah really. I agree that Earths 3D mode has a lot to be desired but the dang thing is free and otherwise works wonderfully. Streetwalk is amazing for leisurely or practical purposes and is generally flawless. It's measurement tools are pretty darn accurate even for a measuring something relatively tiny on the globe such as a house. I use it all the time for business and find it to be extremely useful and user friendly. Again, it's free!!! I only get an 'oops!' when my internet connection is unavailable. I too feel something personal in that post. Either that or you're a highly cynical tech fanboy. And if your last two sentences are true then why are they still the big dogs of the industry?

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

have we found anyone yet still willing to argue that people choose to use micro Soft and google because they like them?

I like Google chrome, mostly cause of its ad blocker :innocent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you get fired from Google or something?

No, I just despise them because they're arrogant and incompetent, and everyone ignores this incompetence and falls over themselves to say how amazingly awesome they are, because they're seen as amazingly awesome.

Emperor's new clothes.

You are one of the only people I hear saying these things about Google. I think Google is a great company!

You obviously never use Youtube, or you'd have seen very clearly what users think of the "improvements" gogole have made.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if your last two sentences are true then why are they still the big dogs of the industry?

Because that's how capitalism works. When companies get so huge and dominant they can just buy out anyone who might offer a superior product. The natural end result is gigantic bloated complacency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I just despise them because they're arrogant and incompetent, and everyone ignores this incompetence and falls over themselves to say how amazingly awesome they are, because they're seen as amazingly awesome.

Emperor's new clothes.

You obviously never use Youtube, or you'd have seen very clearly what users think of the "improvements" gogole have made.

All I am saying is that they have amazing products, and most of their products are free! Furthermore, they way they treat their engineers is awesome. I would love to work in an environment like that.

You don't like them, fine, don't use them. Complaining about their 'incompetence' and 'arrogance' is not going to fix anything.

Those small companies willingly sell themselves to companies like Google. They don't have to. They choose to. That is freedom of choice and I fail to see what would be better than allowing people to transact business freely? If I build a gadget and I decide to sell it to someone that is my choice. Individuals build these companies and if they decide to sell them to Google or anyone else for that matter that is their choice. If you are suggesting that government should be able to force people to sell or not sell things they have themselves built is absolute foolishness. That would absolutely kill the incentive for anyone to build anything and would lead to a downward spiral that only ends very VERY badly for EVERYONE involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those small companies willingly sell themselves to companies like Google. They don't have to. They choose to. That is freedom of choice and I fail to see what would be better than allowing people to transact business freely? If I build a gadget and I decide to sell it to someone that is my choice.

Face it, if you happened to create a cool web filter or site, ect;, and Google called and said they'd like to give you $25 million dollars, or whatever instantly rich offer they have for the product, you'd take it. I would. Web trends can fade quickly or tread slowly if they aren't capitalized on quickly and efficiently. A lot of other factors too but it's $25 million dollars! That would be insane. You would too Admiral.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who have gone through the learning curve of an application or a web site don't want it changed and complain when it is. Sometimes the changes are not good, but often as not people will be delighted once they figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is just economics, supply and demand. When extracurricular words have to get added to the word like "Keynesian" or "Trickle Down" it's just code for government cranking on the levers of power trying to control it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does forcing up the minimum wage count as? Is it "Trickle Up", or "Trickle Down"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does forcing up the minimum wage count as? Is it "Trickle Up", or "Trickle Down"?

Trickle Drip-Dryed Up economics

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To state point blank that so called 'trickle down economics' is making things worse is to over-simplify an INCREDIBLY complicated world economic system.

Since the 1970s there have been a lot of large scale changes in the global economy that are at least as influential as 'trickle down'. Changes such as the move towards 'globalization', the rise of China as an immense source of cheap labor, the baby boomer generation starting to retire, several economic crises and recessions, several wars, the rise of 'too big to fail', and other factors as well.

To state that the decline of the middle and lower classes is caused by 'trickle down' economic theory is like stating that over 1500 people died because the Titanic hit an iceberg. Over 1500 people died because of design flaws in the Titanic, coupled with an overly ambitious plan to make a speed record, coupled with a lack of lifeboats, coupled with hitting an iceberg. All of these flaws/mistakes led to over 1500 people dying, just like all of the flaws/mistakes/politics/environment/etc. for the economy to get where it is now.

To understand the reasons behind the decline of the middle class requires understanding all of the various factors at play, and how they all play together over time.

No I think the iceberg had a lot to do with those people dying and Reagan's voo-doo economics is to blame for the decline of the middle class at and the disparity of wealth we have today as this is exactly what ir was designed to do
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I think the iceberg had a lot to do with those people dying and Reagan's voo-doo economics is to blame for the decline of the middle class at and the disparity of wealth we have today as this is exactly what ir was designed to do

Then I am afraid you are one of those who see's things in black and white, and you simply will never understand the vast web of complex interactions that really make up the cause/effect relationships for society and the world. Your simplistic view of reality is one that the majority of people seem to adhere to, and that view causes a lot of problems in the world.

Reality is far more complex than that and any serious study of history easily shows that this is in fact the truth.

Edited by Einsteinium
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I am afraid you are one of those who see's things in black and white, and you simply will never understand the vast web of complex interactions that really make up the cause/effect relationships for society and the world. Your simplistic view of reality is one that the majority of people seem to adhere to, and that view causes a lot of problems in the world.

Reality is far more complex than that and any serious study of history easily shows that this is in fact the truth.

Not so complex when you can trace the decline of the middle class from the time of the "Reagan revolution" to today
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of major trends since the '80s, whatever happened to "Just Say No" and all the happy followers of that? They grew old and now all they can do is just say yes. All one has to do is turn on their TV to see dozens of drug commercials warning us about heart attack, stroke, and death among the hundreds of other side effects of the trash they peddle us.

The "War on Drugs" is great success!

Borat_Great_Success-260x300_2.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so complex when you can trace the decline of the middle class from the time of the "Reagan revolution" to today

Wow you really think it is that simple, huh? You are forgetting about the rise of automation replacing jobs, the rise of globalism, geopolitical factors, the rise of education costs, the dot com bubble, the financial crisis. All of which have numerous causes. These are but a few of the real causes for why our middle class is shrinking. Rising healthcare costs is another cause, the aging of the baby boomer generation is a huge underlying cause.

Besides, the middle class started shrinking at least as far back as 1967, well before Reagan was elected president, so that alone blows your argument so far out of the water that it left the earth going faster than the speed of light, travelling back in time and coming back around to land on earth in 1908 causing the Tunguska explosion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This article is highly relevant to this thread. Please have a read:

http://www.politico....ml#.U7IsWPk7um5

Wise/smart individual. I hope his words fall on deaf ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading through this thread and have not been able to make a contribution that einsteinium has not beat me to.

Sometimes I wonder if people study any real economics or if they approach these issues with ideological goggles on. Probably Mostly the latter. Economic theory is fairly clear on these matters, and very successful. In fact when you see a major problem, you can usually pinpoint it back to where proper economic theory was not being applied.

So far this thread has touched on everything from international parity to the strawman that "capitalists" want total freedom. In real economics there are very important things that need to be regulated to operate efficiently monopoly, externalities....etc etc. No one with a JC level of education suggests this. We have an index for monopolies, and we have needed regulations for externalities ( though much if it is broken and not used for what it is for). If economic theory is followed properly then a much better chance for successful outcomes exists.

What I'm seeing is many people attaching emotion and attachment to their particular gripes. This is not the way to make policy. The policies that affect all of us should be based on fact and research, not agendas or ideals. To do otherwise is flirting with disaster as indeed seems to be the case. Time and time again our true problems can easily be traced back to the left leaning version of economics. Not the academic. The right is closest with a few problems, but it really shouldn't be a right or left thing. It should be a cut and dry thing. Give me someone with a phd in economics over a politician or a social activist or even a corporation any day.

As I have mentioned all of our ills are addressed in academic capitalism. Collusion, monopoly, externality... All of our ills are addressed. It's not following our own model properly that creates the problems.

Oh, and give up the big bad corporation routine, yes there are nasties trying to bend the rules, but in truth the corporations are us. Americans work for them, their retirements are invested in them, we vote in the executives and decide what their pay is based on our level of ownership. Don't whine if you don't participate. That is your choice. $30 can buy you ownership in the worlds most powerful corporations. Do your homework and start buying. No one ( in the US) is forcing you to be poor. It's not the "rich" holding you back. Spend less time worrying about what everyone else has and pay attention to what you want and have and everything will work out fine. I came from a dirty little trailer park, was on my own at 15, put myself through school, started my own business, and am doing fine. No corporations held me back, on the contrary these big bad meanies did everything they could to help me. I work with young people headed into the world every day, high school internships, girls that code programs, donations to schools, scholarships...... On and on.

Sometimes I don't know what world some of you people live in. It's tough to find a "poor" person in our country that is not over weight with a car, cell phone, computer and plenty of medication. Most really poor people are mentally ill, severely addicted to substance abuse or there by choice. I know... I grew up around it.

Seriously. Take a drive through American suburbia, sit down at a Starbucks with free Wifi and chill out. Then maybe watch a kids soccer game, visit a bounce house place, a trampoline place, or a water park. If you want to live here and enjoy nice Neighbour hoods, parks, you are welcome to join us. :)

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people are poor there are generally reasons. These can be personality traits (laziness, dishonesty, attitude) or physical problems (disabilities, mental illness, unintelligence, simple poor health, age), or past history (lack of education, different language, prejudice, past criminal record) or things like alcoholism and drug abuse. It may be because of foolish decisions or investments or failure to spend wisely and to save.

OK. Maybe some of these could or should be corrected. Still, they are all people and "whoever is without sin . . ." Have some compassion. Social programs should be designed based on need and not to punish people or force them to behave as we think they should. One must try to be wise in avoiding the creation of a dependency class, such as the Romans found they had and helped destabilize their republic, but society must be compassionate and private charity just doesn't have the resources.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big corporations are a two-edged sword. On one hand they tend to offer a steady job with a steady decent paycheck, on the other hand they tend to dominate the market and push away competitors. Work for us or change the line of work seems to be the name of the game for them. My following point is mostly philosophical and insight-based, but I've seen a study too which supports it, that says: cooperation produces better results than competition. It's the basis how the whole cycles of nature work too. When you contribute and get contributed to, you're in a more functional cycle. It's easy to see how this principle gets fulfilled when only big corporations rule the market. And there's no lie in that picture, nothing wrong. But things like emotions and free will exist, the cycle is broken, as those things do not get contributed to as they should. They are basic things that need to be dealt with, not ignored. If all we needed was rationale and logic we'd be no different from machines. Reality is more powerful than economic system we'd want to impose, not vice versa.

Trade works in ways that dont make sense. If you cut out all the rules and abstracts we've imposed, all the thoughts we attach to trade as a part of it and see it as if you watched animals you dont really understand doing their thing, what are those animals doing? What are we doing?

Most of those animals work for others every day. They've developed some nice system where we all contribute and we all get. And then there are some animals who just take the fruits and sit there all day long. Some of those animals go to places and seem to get a lot of stress for no apparent reason (note Frank's post above why, it's the reality of the social welfare system in Finland too). Other lazing-around animals, fewer of them, are treated like kings: they get better meals and fancier nests delivered to them and the opposite sex is more ready to mate them for offsprings or just for the sake of it, often the latter. Now there's a grand mystery: why most of this species show servitude to those in the alpha position? Why? If you take away the money and ownership and such abstract ideas, why? They are thin air, mediators, like language, like words. What actually happens is some work and show servitude, others are served. Money and ownership are the clothes we use to dress that happening, that act. They are not good or bad, nor the actual point.

I guess our species still needs to work on saying no and living like it, while still being able to live in the more benefical cycles. Because it seems like so many of us, me included right now, are saying yes to the alphas with the way we act.

Here's why money and ownership are irrelevant: if you had all you needed without them, would you care for them? Ownership is a child of basic territorialism, aiming to ensure we "stay on the same hunting grounds". And money is just an extension of social things, a language if you like, we use when we trade. We know the language of money when we decide the worth of things. Of course they are not irrelevant to us, because we live with them and have the ideas in our heads. They exist around us and are our reality, we have manifested them a lot. However, by themselves they're irrelevant to us. Food, home, social life and things like that are not irrelevant to us by themselves, they are core values. Other things are just mediators we use to get there.

A point I tried to make: if you take away all the idealism part, money and ownership included as they are just ideas in their core, then what you get is some oddly-behaving animals who don't really seem to have a reason to serve others. If people thought like me, there would be no discussions but actions, but it's a testament of free will to disagree and hesitate. Without free will there's no real choise and thus we must find our own roads and our own truths. This is just mine.

Or what, would it make sense to you if other apes acted like this? Or any other animals? I recall lions act like this, females feeding their males, males enjoying an elevated position. And yeah, ants with queen and workers, bees... idolization does seem to exist and thrive in other nature too. But I wonder why people CHOOSE to lower themselves, on and on. In my case it's obvious, because I'm still working on it without taking too much risks, it's a risk-assessment in my case.

Free will comes through a headache.

Edited by Mikko-kun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.