Trickle Down was the unofficial term that the intelligent people used for the idea that if you give wealthy people and HUGE corporations tax breaks and refunds they will use the money to invest in the USA.
They didn't then and they do not now.
Call it what you want, I'm simply telling you what was going on in the late 70's/early 80's.
W Bush tried something like it again. Why? Why try something that failed?
Oh- he was OWNDED by big business. He WAS big business.
"Trickle Down Economics" has always really meant "Trickle Up Economics." It's time people acknowledged that.
runn wrote:
Trickle Down was the unofficial term that the intelligent people used for the idea that if you give wealthy people and HUGE corporations tax breaks and refunds they will use the money to invest in the USA.
They didn't then and they do not now.
Call it what you want, I'm simply telling you what was going on in the late 70's/early 80's.
W Bush tried something like it again. Why? Why try something that failed?
Oh- he was OWNDED by big business. He WAS big business.
Who was the last president that wasn't OWNED by big business? BTW, Obama will go down as the most pro-Big business president in history.
People that accumulate money doing all sorts of things. Some invest it in new companies (Elon Musk), some give it away (Buffet, etc.), some eradicate disease (Bill & Melinda), and other spend it on themselves (which does trickle down to the boat builders/mansion builders/sports car builders).
The problem with "trickle-down" is that implicit in the theory is that all us peasant are expected to run around like pigeons waiting and hoping the rich give us some crumbs (work: like building a mansion).
This is clearly not a form of policy that should be in place. If we knew that the wealthy would invest/donate 50% of their wealth, I would support lowering taxes on the highest brackets. Remember, some of these people are the best allocaters of capital in the world and I'd rather have them choosing where the money goes than our greedy politicians.
Pre-Econ 101 wrote:
The poor have never had it better than they do right now. World poverty is at all-time lows right now due to globalization (it has been cut IN HALF in the last 40 years).
In America, despite the Left continuously claiming that the middle class is being destroyed, there is one interesting phenominom taking place- the upper middle class has grown to the largest it has ever been. Is is bad?
Poverty will never be completely eliminated. Remember the stated goals of the Great Society? How'd that work out? What actually happened? Mmm hmm.
World poverty has not been cut in half in the last 40 years. That claim is based on World Bank statistics that peg poverty at surviving on $1.25 dollars a day. The rate of people living on that amount has been cut in half, but it is nothing more than an economic slight of hand by the World Bank to justify their neo-liberal policies. The original "dollar a day" measure of abject poverty was effective at capturing the poverty that exists in rural/agrarian parts of the world where most people are subsistence farmers. Over the past 40 years, there has been a massive migration from rural to urban areas. In urban areas, people have no access to agriculture and are 100% dependent on their income for food and shelter. Everything is also more expensive in urban areas. So, you have more people living on $3 a day in an urban area who are actually doing much worse than someone living on $1.25 a day in rural areas.
There have been improving trends worldwide on health statistics, but those are more often than not tied to government and NGO initiatives and have nothing to do with the miracles of the market. For example, Bangladesh has made remarkable strides in the delivery of health care despite the prevalence of abject poverty. This has been the result of government policies and NGO work, not any economic liberalization:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-bangladesh-idUSBRE9AK00220131121The Pope is right. Playing semantics about whether there is such a thing as "trickle down" economics or whether it is just a pejorative term for neo-liberalism, supply side, or whatever doesn't change the fact that we all know what the Pope is talking about. The economic system the Pope is talking about is the system that requires the exploitation of those with the least in order to create massive wealth for the few.
FloppyRunner wrote:
CoachB wrote:Can't all just agree that some regulation is needed and then have our discussions as to where to set the slider on the scale?
Would anyone, for instance, argue that the wars, rapes, abductions of children to serve as soldiers in Congo, funded by illegal mining of semi precious metals is a good thing? Can anyone argue that the murders, abductions, and extortions by the Mexican drug cartels is a good thing? Those are the extreme examples of free market capitalism and the whole world rejects them. In those places, government influence has already drowned in its bathtub.
So please, lets all pretend to be rational human beings for just a moment and acknowledge that, while capitalism has done more to create wealth than any other economic system in the past, capitalism also needs some guidelines. Even Adam Smith wrote that capitalism needs to operate within the rule of law. So instead of simply making inane statements about government getting out of peoples way, drowning in a pool of its own vomit, or whatever talking points are thrown out by the right, let's have some argument from the right on how to maximize efficiency in the system while leaving in place the safeguards that we've already built in.
Who here is saying we don't need ANY regulation?
I don't know that anybody said that here, explicitly. However, every time some politician says "the best thing government can do is get out of the way" or "we want to make government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub". They set the table for the ideological rigidity that has brought our political system to a grinding halt. Every time those sentiments are echoed, it takes us further from a point where we are actually able to rationally tackle our problems.
Politicians say such silly things purely for the sake of getting elected. I doubt they really believe that government regulation is the root of economic problems (after all, why strive so mightily to be part of something you think is wrong?). However, once elected, politicians are blocked from pursuing compromise by our culture of the incessant picking apart and taking out of context every word ever uttered by a politician. For the repubs, this need to hold to ones principles stems from an almost certain primary attack from someone further to the right. So, you get people in government insisting on principles they don't actually believe in.
I'm sure that there are many people in the republican party who believe that things like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Child Labor Laws are pretty good ideas. After all, those laws were all passed under republican presidents. However, how much air time/hype/coverage do aspiring politicians get if they come out and say such things publicly? Zero.
The democratic party is not group of saints either, but in the grand scheme of things....in the sense that ideological inflexibility leads to poor governance, the repubs are far out gunning their blue counterparts.
So, please don't tell me that no one is saying we don't need any regulation. Pols may argue for sane regulations in private, but the firebrand rhetoric they serve up for domestic, gerrymandered district, consumption insures that they cannot be effective at governance once they are actually elected.
The bashing is not all that new although it's surprising that an economic statement by the Pope gains so much media traction. This entire argument was debated endlessly during the last election in that the 'job-makers' need tax cuts in which to make more jobs and improve the employment outlook. This was Romney's entire platform and it's why he took on Ryan as VP. Of course, they could never explain how the numbers would work in the framework of the deficit problem, partly because it's never worked ever. Now, tax cuts are beneficial and they are stimulative and they lead to more output and more jobs. However, they also lead to much greater cuts in spending than the benefits provided due to the giant public budget deficits they create. The scenario of tax cuts for corporations in exchange for spending cuts at hospitals is real, and it's not anti-capitalist to point this out.
One clear new direction in tax policy is being debated in the House Finance Committee right now, it involves lowering the corporate tax rate (which is sorely needed) by eliminating several of the special interest credits and loopholes. The special interests are fighting this change as is the Republican caucus. Why? Because with those obvious loopholes off the table they have nothing left to bargain with in the deficit debate (i.e. slashing entitlement spending).
Supply-side economics, trickle down economics, voodoo economics - it's all the same thing and we all know what it means even if it's not published in a Journal somewhere.
Economic freedom is essential for a moral society.
Our society's "political goal line" has been shift so far to the left that practical conservative policies appear extreme.
The "practical-libertarian" standpoint understands the need for rules and regulation in a complex society but questions some other manifestations of state excess. Specifically, the unintended consequences of state policy.
Trickle-down economics is a shame and is more political pundit fodder than anything else.
The Pope doesn't know what he's talking about and has clearly been watching too much Fox News.
I think it's hilarious the libs are now on the same side as the Pope. Maybe it's because the Pope is down with the gays now? If the pope loves the poor so much, why doesn't he sell the Vatican's treasures and real estate and give the money away?
One plan that is working well is Obama's trickle up poverty. People on government assistance are at an all time high.
Is this what you meant?
Ackley wrote:
Moral freedom is essential for a(n) economic society.
trickling in another way wrote:
I think it's hilarious the libs are now on the same side as the Pope. Maybe it's because the Pope is down with the gays now? If the pope loves the poor so much, why doesn't he sell the Vatican's treasures and real estate and give the money away?
One plan that is working well is Obama's trickle up poverty. People on government assistance are at an all time high.
Under this President the largest asset classes of any American - their home and their retirement savings - have increased. Under what scenario would this event be considered trickle up poverty? The meaning is opposite of the actual result, yes?
~ wrote:
trickling in another way wrote:I think it's hilarious the libs are now on the same side as the Pope. Maybe it's because the Pope is down with the gays now? If the pope loves the poor so much, why doesn't he sell the Vatican's treasures and real estate and give the money away?
One plan that is working well is Obama's trickle up poverty. People on government assistance are at an all time high.
Under this President the largest asset classes of any American - their home and their retirement savings - have increased. Under what scenario would this event be considered trickle up poverty? The meaning is opposite of the actual result, yes?
over-priced housing is an economic hot potato - what is good for one person (homeowner and seller) will be the economic ball-and-chain of another person (buyer).
Why should housing go up (other than to placate the homeowner voting block)? (Honestly, think about it) We're heading into (or are already in) another housing bubble and people think it's a good thing...
If median income has been stagnate for however many decades and realistic unemployment levels are ~12%, how are people affording house price that are back in line with 04-06?
Answer: crippling, two-job household-necessary debt. Result: we are driving headlong into another recession to the sound of applause.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTALCB?cid=101if you have a known heart condition and are taking medication, it is not recommended that you click on this link.
runn wrote:
Trickle Down was the unofficial term that the intelligent people used for the idea that if you give wealthy people and HUGE corporations tax breaks and refunds they will use the money to invest in the USA.
They didn't then and they do not now.
Correct. Corporate profits are at all time highs, income taxes in the upper brackets are at 30 year lows. Supply siders would have us believe that if those rich corporations and people had *just* a little bit more money, they'd be hiring folks in droves and unemployment would drop like a stone. Empirical data proves them wrong.
If what trickle-down means is that by incentivizing formation and growth of businesses (by tax cuts, de- regulation, etc) you will create lower-level jobs, thereby benefitting the people who get those jobs, that is hard to argue. But formation of those business also leads to greater discrepancies in wealth, as the guys are the top will make more than the guy at the bottom, unless you heavily tax the guys making more (which is counter productive). So if "justice" is defined as making sure every one is kind of the same in wealth (through redistribution of wealth by tax, etc.), then trickle down is not "just"
barry mccockiner wrote:
runn wrote:Trickle Down was the unofficial term that the intelligent people used for the idea that if you give wealthy people and HUGE corporations tax breaks and refunds they will use the money to invest in the USA.
They didn't then and they do not now.
Correct. Corporate profits are at all time highs, income taxes in the upper brackets are at 30 year lows. Supply siders would have us believe that if those rich corporations and people had *just* a little bit more money, they'd be hiring folks in droves and unemployment would drop like a stone. Empirical data proves them wrong.
Thank you- that is what I was saying. One problem, and something no Republican has ever answered is:
The Bush Tax Cuts gave tax incentives to corporations who closed US factories and moved overseas.
Obama wants to end that but the Republicans (in the House) won't let him.
Why?
What I want to know is how ANYONE can think that tactic will ADD jobs in the USA.
~ wrote:
trickling in another way wrote:I think it's hilarious the libs are now on the same side as the Pope. Maybe it's because the Pope is down with the gays now? If the pope loves the poor so much, why doesn't he sell the Vatican's treasures and real estate and give the money away?
One plan that is working well is Obama's trickle up poverty. People on government assistance are at an all time high.
Under this President the largest asset classes of any American - their home and their retirement savings - have increased. Under what scenario would this event be considered trickle up poverty? The meaning is opposite of the actual result, yes?
Trickle up poverty for you right here:
http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly.jpgRecord number of people on food stamps! That means more people are poor now than in 2008. Heckava job Barry!
Trickle-down economics has negative effect on economic growth...
krispy kremlin wrote:
And to boot, it is a ridiculous theory that supporters of the wealthy use to help them sleep at night.
Basically: the rich can enjoy their mansions, boats, cars, etc. and all us peasant can run around like birds hoping for a few crumbs. It really is this insulting.
If you want to justify the accumulation of wealth (aside from the tremendous products/services/goods that we enjoy), I think you go at it from the angle of the projects and initiatives that an individual/group can undertake when they have 'excess' wealth. Recent examples would include: Elon Musk, Bill & Melinda, and other rich philanthropists/developers.
When wealth is accumulated you get skyscrapers, museums, and hospital wings. When wealth is unjustly-dispersed you get nail salons, lottery tickets, and tricked-out cars.
+1
Great examples KK. Pure genius as usual. We should all aspire to be more like Musk and pull ourselves up by our boot straps using true free market principles. Get the Governement out of the way and watch the economy soar!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/31/elon-musks-5-billion-in-govt-subsidies-helps-make-ends-meet/"Trickle down" is the anti-capitalist caricature of capitalism. The bashing has been going on for 200 years. It's no surprise that pretty much all major religious figures are against capitalism, which is about the individual using his own independent mind to create the best possible life for himself here on Earth.
Who here is saying we don't need ANY regulation?
Anyone who knows how to think conceptually--that is, clearly distinguish between what capitalism is and what it isn't--will argue that we should not have any regulations. Capitalism is based on the notion of individual rights, which is an all-or-nothing proposition. As soon as you concede the need for some arbitrary degree of regulation of the individual's affairs, you hand the whole issue over to the anti-capitalists, who invoke every percieved "injustice" and economic problem as evidence of the need for more controls, and your nation's economy begins its incremental loss of freedom and gradual decline. The USA is now 130 years into its decline, and the situation today speaks for itself.
