|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trickle Down Economics - Does It Work? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
CS writes: Right, so how is the top getting warmer causing the bottom to get warmer too so difficult to understand as a trickle down effect? CS writes of me:
CS writes: Everything you post is a joke. The irony. It burns. Which causes the same burning feeling a poor Bedouin of the Sahara feels. (Known widely as the "trickle-eastern" theory.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
CS writes: That's not irony, stupid. quote: Stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
CS writes: If when the rich people get warmer, everyone else gets warmer too, wouldn't that be the warmth trickling down? CS writes: Its trickle down economics... something that you are too stupid to make an intelligible comment on Priceless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
RAZD writes: Recently I saw an article that said that the time is approaching when we will need to pay people to consume to keep the economy growing. Is consumerism viable forever? For example, what will happen when the earth's finite resources are depleted? Do you think conservatism can ever be a viable type of economic system? Sure, for very small societies/villages, but what of big capitalistic societies? The earth will be hitting 8 billion soon. What kind of economic society will earth have at 16 billion? Or can consumerism push into space? It's a big universe, probably a lot of room for new Coca Cola marketing territory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Percy writes: The higher your income the faster your income grows, but the incomes of all wage categories increased in real terms. Hmm. To me, this graph to seems to show, since the Reagan years, the middle class (making about 40K) has pretty much stagnated (nearly flat lined). It would seem to demonstrate a failed trickle down economics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Rahvin writes: And yes, the deregulation of the financial sector is an example of trickle-down policy Well, if deregulation of the financial sector is an example of trickle-down policy, then I think trickle down economics can also be applied to many other actions. From the Reagan administration openly facilitating illegal labor practices. To Clinton who pushed NAFTA. To Obama who successfully pushed through three Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama (originally negotiated by Bush Jr. in 2007). Like Bush, Clinton, and the immoral-simpleton Jr., Obama cited false data from corporate lobbyists claiming these deals create jobs. However evidence has shown that NAFTA have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs. These policies continue to guarantee that the middle and lower class's wages would stagnate despite record profits for the rich.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Rahvin writes: I'll just note that I never claimed that trickle-down policies were solely supported by a specific political party. I don't believe I stated that you did.
Rahvin writes: and that "trickle-down" is simply the post-hoc rationalization used to sell those policies to the rest of us. Indeed. And you must admit, the sales pitch has worked and worked and worked beyond their greatest imagination. Many (MANY) americans continue to vote against their best interests, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Percy writes: Rahvin attempted to redefine trickle down economics to include financial deregulation so that he could indict it for missteps by financial regulatory agencies and Congress. "missteps"? I read this three times. Perhaps I am just misreading it and, at best, the sloppy usage shouldn't be bothering me so much, but . . . If you are in the middle or lower economic class, and your home is now under foreclosure, I don't think you would call the deliberate financial deregulation to benefit the wealthy as a mere "misstep" of congress. And, if you are in the higher class (much higher class) like CEO of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Lloyd Craig Blankfein, who made millions in profits and bonuses in deliberate financial deregulation to benefit the wealthy, I also wouldn't use the mere term "misstep". As you yourself wrote:
quote: Thus, I think using the word "misstep" is, at the least, not very accurate. I should think "Grand Theft" a more accurate term.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Percy writes: If you want to accuse anyone of Grand Theft then the culprits would be regulatory agencies, Congress, lobbyists, and most of all, the companies that employed them. aka the rich 1%ers. (Curiously you left out the part where the rich CEOS got BONUSES.)
Percy writes: They foundered, the financial system tottered, trillions were lost, the government had to step in to keep the financial markets that are essential for any functional economy going. "the government", curiously you didn't use a more accurate term, aka the taxpayers, aka the 99%ers. They paid the bill. The Glass—Steagall Act (enacted in 1933) was repealed in 1999 with expected results. For the rich to rob the poor. Also, I've read some articles saying it MAY have NOT been essential to bail them out. At the very least, the bailout should have waited for the situation to prove itself. Instead there was a mad rush to pay the CEOs crazy bonus money. Just like Bush Jr.'s mad rush to invade Iraq before the weapons inspectors could prove there weren't any WMD. (Grrr) Edited by dronester, : clarity Edited by dronester, : Added "ALSO..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Drone writes: Or can consumerism push into space? I know this is off-topic, but I thought my recent post was unusually coincidental to this recent news . . .
quote: quote: Sorry for the interruption, please carry on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Percy writes: In my early posts in this thread I wrote a great deal about the ability of the rich to influence legislation for their own benefit. Percy writes: The reason the wealth a company creates belongs to the company and not to workers is because the company takes on all the risk to capital. Percy, how do you maintain both positions in your head? "the company takes on all the risk"? "ALL"? Are you kidding? Buffalo NY is one of the smallest NFL franchise teams. The owner wants $200+ of TAXPAYER money for another 15 years or he is pulling the team outta Buffalo. Jacksonville, Cinncinnatti, Tampa Bay, St Louis, Baltimore; TAXPAYERS recently paid 85%. Oil corporations get massive tax breaks on top of massive profits. Year after year. Deregulations are a gift to corporations. We just addressed the financial institutions loan bailout. That included bonuses for CEOs. All loans over $# are gauranteed by the government. Risk? The auto manufacturers bailout by the TAXPAYER two years ago? "Hey america, we can produce crappy cars that catch on fire, no problem if nobody buys them, TAXPAYERS will bail us out." ALL of the pentagon vendors. We might as well pay blacksmiths the same zillion dollar contracts with TAXPAYER money. We addressed the topic of nuclear facilities recently in the forum. Contracts stipulate that the corporation's responsibility will be capped if tragedy happens and the taxpayers will foot the excess costs. How is that "taking on the risks"? I previously mentioned many ideas come from universities and government agencies that business take advantage. From the lowly velcro invention to high tech machinery. Product development, courtesy of taxpayer support. Where is the risk from simply taking "free" ideas from TAXPAYER supported initiatives? Drug companies have a government supported monopoly on prices. Where is the free market and its associated "risks" here? Health insurance companies now have a mandatory usage stipulation from the government. Where is the risk? Farming subsidies? Where is the risk to NOT growing something in return for subsidies?
Percy writes: The reason the wealth a company creates belongs to the company and not to workers is because the company takes on all the risk to capital. "the company takes on all the risk"? Just wow. What country are you living in?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
I think you already addressed the simple mechanics of how "capitalism" actually works . . .
Percy writes: In my early posts in this thread I wrote a great deal about the ability of the rich to influence legislation for their own benefit. If you concede that employees are taxpayers, then are you not already conceding that employees risk their "capital". (I noted Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. did NOT go bankrupt) Edited by dronester, : added Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Percy, I'd like you to reconcile this hypothesis:
Percy writes: As I explained before, value is what someone is willing to pay, so your work is worth what someone is willing to pay. You can increase your wealth by working, and you increase your wealth by the amount of the value of your work. with this actuality:
Percy writes: In my early posts in this thread I wrote a great deal about the ability of the rich to influence legislation for their own benefit. Until you can, I'll beleive that "trickle down economics" is a misnomer used to fool taxpayers for what one gets from influenced legislation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024