Trickle down economics is a lie, the proof !

[Space Commander Travis]

I am not a number

Edited July 4, 2014 by Admiral Rhubarb

[Frank Merton]

And then wave the Flag and eat Apple pie and bellow "god bless uncle Sam" while blasting away with your personal Fire arm?

I rather appreciated his naive patriotism. The country would be a lot better if there were more like him. I also appreciate that most Americans do not carry guns, and in fact think those who do, excepting soldiers and law officials, are not the better Americans. Hot apple pie with some cream or ice cream or cinnamon is a treasure.

Patriotism is a virtue. Like all virtues it can be carried too far, but on its own it is admirable and a positive force.

[spacecowboy342]

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.

The middle class struggles at times, true. But supply side economics started by Reagan and continued by conservatives until this day was the equivalent of throwing an anchor to a drowning man

[spacecowboy342]

I rather appreciated his naive patriotism. The country would be a lot better if there were more like him. I also appreciate that most Americans do not carry guns, and in fact think those who do, excepting soldiers and law officials, are not the better Americans. Hot apple pie with some cream or ice cream or cinnamon is a treasure.

Patriotism is a virtue. Like all virtues it can be carried too far, but on its own it is admirable and a positive force.

Weren't you just saying the other day that nationalism was an outmoded idea?

[Frank Merton]

First, you have a distorted view of trickle down economics. It can be very helpful in many economic situations and always helps some. The point in helping the wealthy is to get them (they are the investors) to invest and hence create jobs for others. It looks good on paper and all else being equal can do wonders.

Second, about nationalism and patriotism. I see nationalism as thinking one's nation is better than other nations and patriotism as being willing to die for one's country (as the extreme). The first is negative, the second can be very positive.

[spacecowboy342]

First, you have a distorted view of trickle down economics. It can be very helpful in many economic situations and always helps some. The point in helping the wealthy is to get them (they are the investors) to invest and hence create jobs for others. It looks good on paper and all else being equal can do wonders.

Second, about nationalism and patriotism. I see nationalism as thinking one's nation is better than other nations and patriotism as being willing to die for one's country (as the extreme). The first is negative, the second can be very positive.

Thanks fir the clarification on patriotism. As far as supply side economics, I don't agree that my view of it is distorted. It is based on a lie, that helping the wealthy helps everyone. That is just propaganda from the rich. Jobs aren't created by the rich but by demand for goods and services by a healthy middle class.

[Frank Merton]

Calling it propaganda achieves nothing. There are times when one creates prosperity by letting people get rich. I know -- Vietnam has gone through exactly this. Once you have wealth you can raise capital and get yourself into a virtuous circle.

[F3SS]

Jobs aren't created by the rich but by demand for goods and services by a healthy middle class.

Yes they do and to produce large scale goods and services for the middle class it takes lots o' money.

Middle and lower class folks can produce for society very well but when demand takes off their wallets usually inflate as a result. They're then on their way to becoming rich folks who have more job positions to fill in order to supply for all this demand.

[spacecowboy342]

Calling it propaganda achieves nothing. There are times when one creates prosperity by letting people get rich. I know -- Vietnam has gone through exactly this. Once you have wealth you can raise capital and get yourself into a virtuous circle.

Calling it propaganda achieves telling the truth. We had the 19th century for unrestricted capitalism. It is good for the very rich. Every one else suffers

[spacecowboy342]

Yes they do and to produce large scale goods and services for the middle class it takes lots o' money.

Middle and lower class folks can produce for society very well but when demand takes off their wallets usually inflate as a result. They're then on their way to becoming rich folks who have more job positions to fill in order to supply for all this demand.

Without demand for goods producing them is pointless. Take care of the middle class and poor. The rich have the assets to take care of themselves. It is time for the rich to stop whining about their taxes and pay their share.

[Phaeton80]

Any chosen system that results in the depicted wealth distribution below is quite obviously flawed, and will have a detrimental effect for all parties involved (lower, middle, upper and 'so unbelievably filthy rich you dont know what to do with your mountains of cash so you buy a premier league football club' class).

[Frank Merton]

It is only to be expected that the same proportion of the wealthiest will have more of the nations wealth as the same proportion of the poor. What a silly chart.

[Phaeton80]

Some would think it silly when 20% of the population has 85% of the total wealth.

I dont know if you've been in Vietnam a wee bit too long, but in some parts of the civilized world that kind of inequality is frowned upon.

Which is a good thing.

[Gromdor]

Which begs the question. If they already have 85% of everything, how much more do we need to give them for it to start to trickle down?

[spacecowboy342]

Which begs the question. If they already have 85% of everything, how much more do we need to give them for it to start to trickle down?

All the rest apparently

[+DieChecker]

That would be a fine chart if it only had the first two entries. Adding the third, "Distribution 92% Choose as Ideal" is stupid. Who isn't going to want to provide more power/wealth/goods to their own social group? Everyone wants to live like a King, regardless of how much or hard they work, and regardless of what the costs would be.

Ask anyone at a Employment Department standing in line for a job, or a check, if they would rather have large screen TVs be $100 or $1000. Or ask them if the job they want should earn $10 an hour, or $50 an hour. Regardless of the job they are seeking, they will want the $100 TV and the $50 an hour pay. They will describe that situation as "ideal".

Edited July 4, 2014 by DieChecker

[spacecowboy342]

That would be a fine chart if it only had the first two entries. Adding the third, "Distribution 92% Choose as Ideal" is stupid. Who isn't going to want to provide more power/wealth/goods to their own social group? Everyone wants to live like a King, regardless of how much or hard they work, and regardless of what the costs would be.

Ask anyone at a Employment Department standing in line for a job, or a check, if they would rather have large screen TVs be $100 or $1000. Or ask them if the job they want should earn $10 an hour, or $50 an hour. Regardless of the job they are seeking, they will want the $100 TV and the $50 an hour pay. They will describe that situation as "ideal".

If that were the case they would leave nothing for anyone else, much as the 1%ers are trying to do now. The disparity of wealth is appalling

[Mikko-kun]

Trickle down economics is just a part of it. It's just the crutch which makes it harder for those down in the ladder to step up. Harder is not bad, but it's a bloody gamble if you're not endoved with money. It's not that the rich would be wrong in sustaining this kind of economy. It's just that the rest of us are afraid to gamble. We're afraid to gamble our lives and futures, our own lives and futures, so how could we dare to encourage anyone else to gamble theirs? Gambling is what it takes to succeed, because you invest a lot and dont know if you get anything back. You dare.

Inside comfort zone, in routines we've gotten accustomed to there's only support to us. Just support, not the leverage you need to succeed in this world. The leverage comes from breaking out of the comfort zone. Nothing good will come from pointing the finger outside if you haven't pointed it inwards first. It's an empty finger without your personal wage.

[Yamato]

Trickle down economics is just a part of it. It's just the crutch which makes it harder for those down in the ladder to step up. Harder is not bad, but it's a bloody gamble if you're not endoved with money. It's not that the rich would be wrong in sustaining this kind of economy. It's just that the rest of us are afraid to gamble. We're afraid to gamble our lives and futures, our own lives and futures, so how could we dare to encourage anyone else to gamble theirs? Gambling is what it takes to succeed, because you invest a lot and dont know if you get anything back. You dare.

Inside comfort zone, in routines we've gotten accustomed to there's only support to us. Just support, not the leverage you need to succeed in this world. The leverage comes from breaking out of the comfort zone. Nothing good will come from pointing the finger outside if you haven't pointed it inwards first. It's an empty finger without your personal wage.

The gamble however is proportional to the percentage of capital and resources you invest. A poor person might sink 100% of everything they've got to have the least hope of growing a successful company with a solid foothold of loyalty in the marketplace. A rich person could maintain a whole stable of such investments and not even know it.

It's a valid debate whether trickle down policies have the intended (stated) effects that it does; but the better debate is whether we need a policy from fed guv at all.

[Yamato]

Republicans and Democrats both want a State where the government is responsible for the employment.

When did the government intrude into the marketplace like this and connive all these freedom loving bipartisans that one's right to work is guaranteed by govt? You Republicans and Democrats all fail in three seconds flat when it comes to actually executing on all the fluff you love to talk about.

[Yamato]

Yamato's Economic Reform act of 2014:

1. End the Federal Reserve System

2. End the Income Tax

3. End the IRS

4. Slap anyone in the face who's still crying

From there, we enjoy the superior results we would have financially, economically, and politically. The US would slowly become seen in the world as the country where charity comes from, not the force-controller of lethal policies run by bureaucrats.

[Space Commander Travis]

Which begs the question. If they already have 85% of everything, how much more do we need to give them for it to start to trickle down?

That's the trouble with the analogy. It envisages an overflowing sink or leaky pipe or something, where the overflow seeps through the floorboards into the floor below. The Elite are far too clever to be that careless. They're like a sponge, which soaks up all the wealth and is guaranteed not to spill a drop.

[Einsteinium]

That's the trouble with the analogy. It envisages an overflowing sink or leaky pipe or something, where the overflow seeps through the floorboards into the floor below. The Elite are far too clever to be that careless. They're like a sponge, which soaks up all the wealth and is guaranteed not to spill a drop.

That is not what 'trickle down' means. Where do the wealthy keep their wealth? Most of their wealth is invested. Invested in what? Heavy in stocks and bonds for the most part. What do investments in stocks and bonds do? It provides companies with capital to grow their business. Well what does that do? It creates jobs. That is the theory behind trickle down.

It is flawed, though, because companies do not grow by investment alone. Companies grow when they are selling services/products to consumers and are making profit. Well this can only happen when consumers have enough money to spend on said services and products. This means that the best way to grow the economy is to get as much money in the hands of consumers as reasonably possible so that they can spend on products and services, which equals profit to businesses, which can then reinvest that profit into new jobs and growth. In reality- the middle class both trickles money down to the poor, and fattens the pockets of those at the top simultaneously. Henry Ford realized this and paid his employees more than his competition so that they could afford to buy one of his cars. Wealth in the hands of the middle class enriches us all, wealth in the hands of the top 1% can only help enrich us all when the middle class can spend and consume.

[Mikko-kun]

The gamble however is proportional to the percentage of capital and resources you invest. A poor person might sink 100% of everything they've got to have the least hope of growing a successful company with a solid foothold of loyalty in the marketplace. A rich person could maintain a whole stable of such investments and not even know it.

It's a valid debate whether trickle down policies have the intended (stated) effects that it does; but the better debate is whether we need a policy from fed guv at all.

Well actually, losing everything you got is not so bad. That's only everything you got right now. But lets say you lose so much you'd be in debt for the rest of your life pretty much no matter what you do, unless you win in lottery or something. Lets say you take a big loan to start up a daring enterprise. Do or die. I've already gambled my two years worth of paycheck to improve a certain person's life, that's nothing in comparison to taking a big loan. If banks or anyone gave you such loan... taking it from less reputable sources could be even worse if you can't pay back like you promised.

Being poor is not scary, being without a future, that's another thing.

[questionmark]

Let's face it, trickle down economy was what France had during the Baroque, the idea was that some of the riches would end at "the lower classes" by the "upper classes" requiring goods and services from them... we also know how it ended... the "lower classes" making the "upper classes" a head shorter.