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

So you are willing to admit now that the GF had no excuse for secretly (illegally) recording Mr Sterling?

I do not know what you refer to here, its in another thread. However I can clearly state that Government has a role and duties to the population, and businesses, and spying on its citizens is not one of them. I am advocate for high probity administration which is not an oxymoron despite people belief to the contrary.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Br Cornelius cant debate without insults and a condescending tone for some reason. Its why I much prefer debating with other left people

If you think projecting onto people your own prejudices is debating you are sorely mistaken. There is so little actual debate from some people here that its frankly laughable, sloganizing and ideology is what I get all the time. The fact that I refuse to sloganize about some easy off the shelf solutions to all the problems seem to infuriate people who have nothing but certainty about the absolute value of their own beliefs. There are no easy solutions and the desire for easy solutions is a social pathology which leaves people grossly open to political manipulation.

Let me restate here what this thread is all about - it has been shown that when wealth disparity emerges from a deregulated free market it ultimately leads to social instability. If you accept the evidence then you either accept that its inevitable that the current trajectory will lead us to that crisis, or that there has to be a way of changing course to avoid that social instability. I advocate a real debate about what it would take to remove the problem. There seems to be no takers on accepting the problem - just retreat into unfounded belief that we live in the best of all possible worlds and nothing bad is on the horizon. I don't do faith.

I am deeply disturbed at the inability to actually face the problem.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even that esteemed bastion of market philosophy Forbes admits there is a problem;

How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S.

Comment Now

300px-2008_Top1percentUSA1.png

New research indicates that growing income inequality isn’t just unpleasant; it is seriously hurting the U.S. economy. And economists are figuring out just how the damage is done, according to a fascinating new article by the journalist Jonathan Rauch in National Journal. This challenges a long-standing consensus that, as Rauch puts it, “inequality is the price America pays for a dynamic, efficient economy. . . . As long as the bottom and the middle are moving up, there is no reason to mind if the top is moving up faster.”

He begins by pointing out that we have learned in recent years that a rising tide does not necessarily lift all ships. The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% of households doubled their share of pretax income while the share of the bottom 80% fell. Then came the great recession. Economists including David Moss of the Harvard Business School noticed that “the last time inequality rose to its current heights was in the late 1920s, just before a financial meltdown. . . . In 2010, Moss plotted inequality and bank failures since 1864 on the same graph; he found an eerily close fit.”

http://www.forbes.co...maging-the-u-s/

“Widely unequal societies do not function efficiently, and their economies are neither stable nor sustainable in the long term,” Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, writes in his new book, The Price of Inequality. “Taken to its extreme—and this is where we are now—this trend distorts a country and its economy as much as the quick and easy revenues of the extractive industry distort oil- or mineral-rich countries.”

Stiglitz’s formulation is a good two-sentence summary of the emerging macroeconomic indictment of inequality, and the two key words in his second sentence, “extreme” and “distort,” make good handles for grasping the arguments. Let’s consider them in turn.

http://www.nationalj...20120927?page=1

When you can't use evidence to solve problems then you are in deep **** and sinking faster than you can paddle. The course we are currently on represents a failure of an ideologically driven approach to address societies real needs.

Effectively you have hit the crisis which threw Europe into convulsive wars and revolutions when most of the Elite Nobility were swept from power and influence over a 100 years ago. Europe is reluctant to re-enter into the Siren call of "totally deregulated free markets and super rich elites" because they paid for the lesson in blood - millions of people died learning those lessons. I wouldn't want America to have to relearn those lessons all over again.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What economy?

that's a very good question. Whatever did happen to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you keep stating we are unregulated or deregulated. Regulations increase by the many thousands every year. Going by your little inequality chart up there I could easily say that regulations have increased several fold beginning right around 1980. What's the correlation? The problems are more likely due to shltty politicians enacting crony capitalism than to under regulation.

Continue to be disturbed and infuriated. We have all tried to engage in your debate based on a book from France that cherry picked and skewed its results that you are raving about based on reading Amazon reviews and PR plugs rather than the book itself. It seems you only consider a debate a debate when everyone sees it your way. If not you resort to the progressive mantra of detract and defame. That's no slogan. That based on empirical evidence shown in many of your posts in many threads throughout a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though. Rather then actually helping the underprivileged, and improving poverty rates, and malnutrition rates, and poor education rates.... Let's just tax the rich and call it good. Isn't going to work, I am afraid.

This is like blaming autism on vaccines, when it isn't the vaccines that are the problem, it is autism that is the problem. Blaming the rich for being rich and saying that if those dang evil rich people could just be brought low, then poverty and hunger and education would somehow be magically fixed.

The proof of the lie of your statement will play out, and the belief that your is the best and only way is easy to disprove by simply looking around and seeing that things can work in other ways.

....

Since its the stock market, and its casino ways, which are at the root of almost all of Americas wealth disparity - that would be the place to start.

What lie? Do you believe that taxing the crud out of the rich and reestablishing the equality of everyone will magically fix societies ills. My statement was that such was not so. So for your statement to be true, you would have to believe that equality equals fixing society.

No and here's the rub, I have clearly stated that it isn't my position - it is your projection of my position.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other??

Summery:

Diechecker: Taxing the rich will not magically fix the ills of society.

Cornelius: That is a lie. Fixing the Stock Market is a good start to fixing society.

Diechecker: Where is my statement a lie?

Cornelius: Quit attacking me with strawman statements.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you keep stating we are unregulated or deregulated. Regulations increase by the many thousands every year. Going by your little inequality chart up there I could easily say that regulations have increased several fold beginning right around 1980. What's the correlation? The problems are more likely due to shltty politicians enacting crony capitalism than to under regulation.

Continue to be disturbed and infuriated. We have all tried to engage in your debate based on a book from France that cherry picked and skewed its results that you are raving about based on reading Amazon reviews and PR plugs rather than the book itself. It seems you only consider a debate a debate when everyone sees it your way. If not you resort to the progressive mantra of detract and defame. That's no slogan. That based on empirical evidence shown in many of your posts in many threads throughout a long time.

Market deregulation of the financial sector and the stock market was the policy introduced under Reagan and pursued up until now. Thats a plain and simple fact that no serious economist would dispute.its called supply side economics and has been the domiant economic model since the 1980's. Supply side economics has shown itself to cause massive boom and bust cycles which are highly damaging to the long term stability of the economy - because every bust causes a loss of productive capacity which is difficult to rebuild. It also causes wealth disparity which further destroys productive capacity since the incentives are to seek short term gain on capitol rather than pursuing long term investments in productive capacity.

Other regulations are not material to this dicussion.

And Fess I have supplied numerous other articles from eminent economist (Nobel prize winners) to support the position I have stated. Can I ask what you have done other than proffer your indignant opinion ? Where's your evidence, where's your refutation with facts of those "cherry picked" stats i gave. You haven't because you really haven't engaged with the debate at all - you have mouthed off that you don't like what the evidence points to. Bravo.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other??

Summery:

Diechecker: Taxing the rich will not magically fix the ills of society.

Cornelius: That is a lie. Fixing the Stock Market is a good start to fixing society.

Diechecker: Where is my statement a lie?

Cornelius: Quit attacking me with strawman statements.

Unfortunately it seems that some degree of "taxing the rich" will probably be part of the mix, since they have avoided paying taxes in proportion to the rest of the population.

The lie is that whatever we are doing now is the only and best way of running the economy - that is plainly wrong since the country is seriously in decline and the wealth disparity is causing social unrest which can only get worse. Some degree of serious intervention is the only way to stop the top 1% of the population sucking up almost all of the countries wealth leaving the majority increasingly looking on as bystanders. I know you are an advocate for liberalized markets so this would be a hard thing to admit.

Would you not agree that there is serious problem to be addressed - and that some way of rebalancing the economy away from exclusively rewarding the rich is essential ?

What i find staggering is this massive hatred of anything Government - its just plain irrational considering that all countries have and will always have governments so why hate them ? My position is make them work they way they should - which is to ensure all stakeholders get a fair share for their input.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read some youtube comments where a USA-loving USA-man proclaimed his belief that capitalism is god, he quite literally said that, and communists should be killed. I dont want to be anti-USA despite all what's happened, people have a right to change if they want. I think that in this issue people are letting their past and the status quo dictate their future too much, you need altruistic level-headed renegades who know how to make changes without demonizing the old with these kinda problems, not conformists salesmen. The problem is, people ain't gonna get one into office too soon.

Hate and demonizing is pointless, you need to move away from that to solve things. People need to think outside their box, be stronger than the indoctrinations that are in effect. Indoctrination is not good nor bad, but it's not something you should let rule your thinking and feeling, as those are original, real and natural. You need to empower the people, inspire them to wake from the circus and bread stupor.

Tarot card XVI is appropriate for this - tower. Constructions of man will fall before the laws of the universe. It's not if, but when.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Market deregulation of the financial sector and the stock market was the policy introduced under Reagan and pursued up until now. Thats a plain and simple fact that no serious economist would dispute.its called supply side economics and has been the domiant economic model since the 1980's. Supply side economics has shown itself to cause massive boom and bust cycles which are highly damaging to the long term stability of the economy - because every bust causes a loss of productive capacity which is difficult to rebuild. It also causes wealth disparity which further destroys productive capacity since the incentives are to seek short term gain on capitol rather than pursuing long term investments in productive capacity.

Other regulations are not material to this dicussion.

And Fess I have supplied numerous other articles from eminent economist (Nobel prize winners) to support the position I have stated. Can I ask what you have done other than proffer your indignant opinion ? Where's your evidence, where's your refutation with facts of those "cherry picked" stats i gave. You haven't because you really haven't engaged with the debate at all - you have mouthed off that you don't like what the evidence points to. Bravo.

Well then you win. USA, it's time to change. It's time we become European again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it seems that some degree of "taxing the rich" will probably be part of the mix, since they have avoided paying taxes in proportion to the rest of the population.

The lie is that whatever we are doing now is the only and best way of running the economy - that is plainly wrong since the country is seriously in decline and the wealth disparity is causing social unrest which can only get worse. Some degree of serious intervention is the only way to stop the top 1% of the population sucking up almost all of the countries wealth leaving the majority increasingly looking on as bystanders. I know you are an advocate for liberalized markets so this would be a hard thing to admit.

Would you not agree that there is serious problem to be addressed - and that some way of rebalancing the economy away from exclusively rewarding the rich is essential ?

What i find staggering is this massive hatred of anything Government - its just plain irrational considering that all countries have and will always have governments so why hate them ? My position is make them work they way they should - which is to ensure all stakeholders get a fair share for their input.

Br Cornelius

I would agree that more taxing of the rich is needed. I'd also agree that it is only a part of a plan that probably would include a dozen such changes.

My point was taxing the rich is not the only answer, which I think dovetails with what you were saying, which is why what I wrote is not a lie. I didn't propose a fix, only stated that taxing the rich alone is not an answer in and of itself. It is Part of the answer, I would agree, but it is not a magic pill that will turn around the economy if there is no rich anymore.

I personally dislike government due to the incredible wastage that happens, the inefficiency is to a degree where if it was a business, it would close within a month. If we had effective leadership, and genuine responsibility to the People, and skilled experts running things, then I would feel a lot less aggressive toward the FedGov. But since the government is full of career bureaucrats who basically can't be fired, and cronies of those currently in power, the "expert" skills don't exist, and they are more concerned with advancement of their careers then with the business of the American people, I just don't think a very effective government is going to happen. Even in the military, politics is the number one concern of those at the top.

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

What economy?

That word is nothing more than an abstraction. An "economy" is whatever system of trade satisfies the needs of a society. The economic model would certainly change under pbarosso's suggestions, but "the economy" would not collapse because there is no such thing as "the economy". Those who tell you that there is are spinning you a lie.

Exactly, you just reiterated what I said. The system of trade that satisfies the needs of society would collapse overnight. That would cause a lot of pain for a lot of people for a very long time. The economy, is simply the word that equates to the system of trade that satisfies the need of society.

Just because the word refers to an abstraction of sorts does not mean that what the word is describing does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one thing Cornelius doesn't understand is that regulations help the big more and hurt the small, actually reducing competition and putting more power into the hands of those who can buy access and those who can best afford compliance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one thing Cornelius doesn't understand is that regulations help the big more and hurt the small, actually reducing competition and putting more power into the hands of those who can buy access and those who can best afford compliance.

Yes they can do that in a corrupt system. But regulations are the tool we have to achieve the outcomes we want. Lobbying from the Rich and their business interests are the problem, so attack that aspect of the crisis. The point is, having no regulation of the private sector would be worse since that is a recipe for the ills of monopolies which inevitably come to dominate deregulated markets.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aWe can regulate 'till we are blue in the face, and in fact must and do. It doesn't solve the core problems, just smooths things around the edges while at the same time creating more opportunities for the corrupt to be corrupt. Regulations require regulators and inspectors and so on, all of whom can be bribed, with money or in other more subtle ways.

Regulations are what you get when things go wrong -- when buildings collapse and 85 year old grandmothers freeze because their power was disconnected. Odd thing is, buildings still sometimes collapse and 85 year old grandmothers still sometimes freeze. Maybe you've reduced the number of these things, maybe you've just made a few people richer. One thing is for sure -- it is only the large contractor and the big power company that can afford to eat the additional expenses.

I think a more powerful tool in improving everyone's lives -- and that is the objective I assume -- is incentives. Make it possible to grow rich if you do the right things, and make it possible to pass most of that wealth on to your descendants.

This is not easy but in fact is almost never achieved in political situations where grandstanding populists and hate preachers are always a threat that has to be responded to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Br, why do you blame 'trickle down' economics for the wealth disparity that you claim keeps increasing, when there are so many other factors at play? What makes you so sure that 'trickle down' is the major reason for this?

I think that the evidence quite clearly shows that globalism and cheap labor overseas becoming readily available is the primary cause of this rise in wealth disparity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Br, why do you blame 'trickle down' economics for the wealth disparity that you claim keeps increasing, when there are so many other factors at play? What makes you so sure that 'trickle down' is the major reason for this?

I think that the evidence quite clearly shows that globalism and cheap labor overseas becoming readily available is the primary cause of this rise in wealth disparity.

Trickle down economics is the primary cause, the others are secondary courses. Lets be clear what trickle down means, it means supply side economics where the market is highly deregulated and tax is set deliberately low on corporations and the wealthy. All the other ills are different aspects of this economic model and so are directly related to "trickle down economics".

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trickle down economics is the primary cause, the others are secondary courses. Lets be clear what trickle down means, it means supply side economics where the market is highly deregulated and tax is set deliberately low on corporations and the wealthy. All the other ills are different aspects of this economic model and so are directly related to "trickle down economics".

Br Cornelius

Well, our market is not in any way highly deregulated, in fact we have more regulations than ever! Where do you come up with these lies? Tax is set low on corporations in the US? Median tax rate for domestic corporations in the US is 23%, while multinationals pay a median of 28%. The US has a higher effective corporate tax rate than the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, China, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Taiwan, India, Malaysia, and many others. The US actually has quite a high corporate tax rate in comparison to much of the rest of the world.

So what the h^&* are you talking about?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seams Piketty's book is coming apart. His claims do not support his sources:

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/27/terence-corcoran-big-data-problems-plague-thomas-pikettys-capital/

So what’s wrong with Thomas Piketty’s claims, detailed in his best-selling Capital in the 21st Century, that wealth inequality is rising in Europe and the United States? Data problems, says Chris Giles, economics editor of the Financial Times. In a detailed blog posting last Friday, Mr. Giles documents his sensational claim that the French economist’s conclusions “do not appear to be backed by the book’s own sources.”

Graphs and charts that appear to prove that wealth inequality is growing in Europe, Britain and the United States contain what Mr. Giles says are data gaps, inappropriate data, and data treatments that create trends that may not exist.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seams Piketty's book is coming apart. His claims do not support his sources:

http://business.fina...kettys-capital/

So what's wrong with Thomas Piketty's claims, detailed in his best-selling Capital in the 21st Century, that wealth inequality is rising in Europe and the United States? Data problems, says Chris Giles, economics editor of the Financial Times. In a detailed blog posting last Friday, Mr. Giles documents his sensational claim that the French economist's conclusions "do not appear to be backed by the book's own sources."

Graphs and charts that appear to prove that wealth inequality is growing in Europe, Britain and the United States contain what Mr. Giles says are data gaps, inappropriate data, and data treatments that create trends that may not exist.

Income inequality has risen steadily since the 1980's as a consequence of NeoLiberal economics. I will await to see if wealth inequality has similarly risen - but i would be extremely surprised if it hadn't mirrored the rise in income inequality. I don't think Piketty's thesis has been disproved yet - but its sure to get viciously slated by the NeoLiberal fanboy economists who got us into this mess in the first place.

Love the way Corcoran slips in a good chunk climate change denial to make his point - classy :tu:

And E's its the financial markets which have been deregulated since the 1980's - how many times do I have to repeat that statement before it registers. In London it was called the Big bang.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

data gaps, inappropriate data, and data treatments that create trends that may not exist.

In other words, he made it up. Falsifying data to pursue an agenda. Here's the kicker, he's conning people out of their money to line his pockets like the evil capitalists he makes a living pouncing on. What a scum bag. Progressives will never live in the world they prescribe for you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, our market is not in any way highly deregulated, in fact we have more regulations than ever!

I've been saying the same thing to no avail. I've come to the conclusions that first and foremost everything is Americas fault so let's get that straight and second is that we must be perceived as unregulated for the sin of not enacting his regulations. If we aren't regulated the European way, whatever that is, then we aren't regulated at all. Other than that I'm pretty darn sure there are an astronomical amount of regulations strangling businesses as we speak. Several thousand new pages a year. Even at 1000 pages that comes to almost 3 new pages regulations created and implemented every single day every day of the year. Good grief.

Edited by F3SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been saying the same thing to no avail. I've come to the conclusions that first and foremost everything is Americas fault so let's get that straight and second is that we must be perceived as unregulated for the sin of not enacting his regulations. If we aren't regulated the European way, whatever that is, then we aren't regulated at all. Other than that I'm pretty darn sure there are an astronomical amount of regulations strangling businesses as we speak. Several thousand new pages a year. Even at 1000 pages that comes to almost 3 new pages regulations created and implemented every single day every day of the year. Good grief.

If you all don't know that the financial markets were deregulated in the 1980's I don't know why I am talking to you all. Its history - go read about it.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piketty's hockey stick graph isn't holding up to independent scrutiny. .. yes BR.. just like Michael Mann's global temperature hockey stick graph.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you all don't know that the financial markets were deregulated in the 1980's I don't know why I am talking to you all. Its history - go read about it.

Br Cornelius

So let me get this straight, you are ONLY advocating for more regulation in the financial markets? You only have a problem with the financial sector, and everything you stated earlier is to be applied to the financial market system and no other sector of the economy? Because if that is what you are saying, then I actually agree with you to a point.

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.