Summations Only

Suppose that's true. How would you correlate the two? Couldn't it also be argued that that growth was due in large part to a technology boom? Are you saying that the tech boom wouldn't have happened if the rich didn't get their tax breaks?You also seem to be saying that in order for TDE to work, we must be coming from previously high top tier tax rates and that extended low tax rates won't work for TDE. Doesn't that in and of itself make it an economic principle that is unreliable as it only works for certain periods of time? Wouldn't a sound economic principle be something that can be maintained and provide continued growth?

Why don't you just straightforwardly state the point you're trying to make?--Percy

It seems that the trend has been deregulation. I am not well educated in this area, so bring me up to speed as to the benefits, for instance, of power and utility companies the old way versus AR? (After Reagan)

The fact that it arbitrarily limits an economic theory to a single economic policy, that being specifically taxes, when the exact same reasoning is used for other, non-tax related economic policies.The arguments used when discussing deregulation of investment and other boons for the wealthiest classes are exactly identical to those used when discussing their taxes: benefit the top, and the benefit will trickle down to the rest of us. Cut taxes at the top and they'll hire more; deregulate investment and they'll invest more and that will create more jobs; etc.It looks like a duck, Percy. It sounds like a duck. It swims like a duck, it flies just like a duck.The only thing preventing you from recognizing that it's a duck is that there's a Wikipedia article telling you that we can only talk about one, specific duck rather than all of the ducks.The distinction is arbitrary and meaningless. Unless you can give a single, good reason why "trickle-down economics" discussions should not include economic policies other than pure tax policy?I wonder why it's not just called "trickle-down tax breaks?"I'm not redefining anything; Wikipedia just has a bad definition. That's hardly unusual, considering that anyone can just edit Wiki articles. Should I go ahead and just edit the article and give it a better definition? If I do that, would you accept that "trickle-down economics" is, as the name implies, a broad theory for developing economic policy, which includes but is not at all limited solely to tax policy?

Great subject but not related to this thread.

"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:

---

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.

---

Thus, I think using the word "misstep" is, at the least, not very accurate. I should think "Grand Theft" a more accurate term.

The benefit of what?Productivity per person has increased by about a 100% yet for almost all in society incomes have risen only a small fraction of that (sub 20% on average)Only for the wealthiest have there been increases in income which are remotely comparable to the increase in average productivity.Unless you think the wealthy are almost exclusively responsible for this increased productivity how n Earth can you conclude that any trickle down has happened?If the average worker has increased his productivity by 100% but only seen an increase in income of 20% he hasn't experienced trickle down has he? If anything he has experienced trickle up as the wealthiest siphon off the fruits of his increased productivity. Are you assuming that ALL of the increased productivity is due to the wealthiest and that anybody else's increases in income are the result of trickle down?That's what it look like.......

Percy is John Galt...

I think Percy and CS have been beguiled by the fact that there are a series of rising lines. And as long as all the lines are rising they seem to have concluded that the other lines are rising because the line for the rich is rising.But a 100% increase in productivity for a sub 20% increase in income doesn't sound like trickle down to me. The only way to conclude that trickle down has occurred is to assume that all (or nearly all) the growth is due to the rich and that the rest of society is lucky to see any benefit at all.It's nonsense.

Yet many countries successfully tax the rich to much higher levels than the US, and nearly every developed nation is less unequal than the US (my own country scores badly here, but not as badly as yours).The idea that the rich are untouched and untouchable is rubbish. Also, frankly, the ultimate sanction of the rich is to leave to which I say "don't let the door hit you on the way out". The ultra-rich are just plain too harmful to allow the current situation to continue.

Yes, absolutely, it could be argued that growth was due to a tech boom. Or to globalization. Or to declining energy prices. Or to something else. And Rahvin says we should consider that the Reagan tax cuts should be considered as a meaningful factor in the recent financial meltdown. So if anything that happened in the last 30 years has to be considered a factor, how are you ever going to conclusively sort out cause and effect?This is where I come back to the point about the incredible complexity of economics. There are many, many variables. Determining cause and effect is extremely difficult. That's why I don't claim to have conclusive evidence for any particular position. I'm positive that trickle down happens (and trickle up and trickle sideways), because that's just the nature of an economy. But whether it works or not? I believe that in 1981 when marginal tax rates were high it worked. But today? We don't have 70% marginal tax rates anymore, I don't believe it would work.--Percy

Yea, and from that, you say that TDE has happened and worked, while we have said that "well, the rich have gotten their tax breaks and have amassed their wealth far and above any other class, and we are still in this shit economy, so obviously no it hasn't worked". You've sure been adament that TDE works for also claiming to not have any conclusive evidence. Yet you've still not shown that.

...If the economy is too complicated to determine cause and effect with any reasonable certainty, where precisely does your certainty regarding the occurrence of "trickle-down" come from, I wonder?Imagine, for a moment, that a new Creationist poster suggested that "The biosphere is just too complex. There are many, many variables. Determining cause and effect is extremely difficult. I'm positive that Intelligent Design happens."How would we normally respond?You're simultaneously suggesting that we cannot know, and that you still know. Those two claims are mutually exclusive.So...is it possible to determine whether "trickle-down" happens and offers an effective strategy for improving the economy in general, and you know this? Or is the economy too complex, and you cannot say? You really can't have it both ways. All currently active policies should be considered. Just because a given law is old doesn't mean it isn't still having an effect. Laws against homicide are about as old as the governments that enforce them, and the effect of a murderer in prison is still caused in large part by those old laws. Tax policy, if still in effect, will have an effect on the economy, regardless of when that policy was specifically enacted.I don't know if specifically the Reagan tax cuts had a meaningful effect on the current crisis, you're manufacturing a nice specific strawman of my far more general position. I do know that the deregulation and neglectful oversight of the financial sector over the past several decades has had a cumulative effect on the current economy, generating artificial booms and staving off more natural market corrections (ie, smaller, more manageable recessions) until the collapse almost broke the financial back of the entire world.

FTFY.

So we all agree that there are numerous causes of increased productivity.Yet the evidence conclusively shows that it is the wealthiest rather than anyone else who have benefited most significantly from that increased productivity.If the wealthiest have benefited from increases in national productivity in a way that is deeply disproportionate to their contribution to that increased national productivity - Then what exactly is it that has trickled down?If you increase your productivity by 100% and receive a 20% increase in income do you:A) Thank the wealthy for trickling down their wealth to you?
B) Ask yourself where the fruits of your increased productivity have gone?I put it to you that in terms of increased productivity Vs increased benefit the situation over the last 30 years or so is trickle up rather than trickle down. That's what the data shows.