|
Author
|
Topic: Trickle Down Economics - Does It Work?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: A closer look...
In a too-broad sense, yes, I think your definition of poor works. In every day conversation, your definition works. But, IMO, when discussing economics in this fashion like we are, I think it's better to make the distinction that the poor who don't have jobs (for sake of discussion, let's not factor children into this since I think it is safe to say they share the economic status of their parents) are not simply just poor. The graph is showing the household incomes. Which makes it even wierder that they compare those to the minimum wage. If you have a teenager living in your house making minimum wage, I wonder if that counts towards the household income or not. And if the household isn't poor, then why does it matter what wage the teenager is making?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 181 by hooah212002, posted 04-19-2012 4:04 PM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Whan the rich get warm we all get warm....
You owe me a graph.
Well then just what would be a result of something trickling down? If its not the bottom going up when the top goes up then what is it?
A situation where the latter is the cause and the former is the effect of that cause. Right, so how is the top getting warmer causing the bottom to get warmer too so difficult to understand as a trickle down effect? Or does Straggler just not speak the same language as me?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Whan the rich get warm we all get warm....
Well thanks for the graphs of the average temperature... I thought you were going to graph what people were feeling. We all know rich people just sit around inside all day in the air-conditioning.
Because the one does not in fact cause the other. The chain of events does not go: Rich people feel warm -> weather gets warm -> poor people feel warm. It goes: Weather gets warm -> rich and poor people alike feel warm. You're just assuming the conclusion. How do you know that the same thing pertains to TDE? Oh, and you changed your conclusion which used to be this:
quote:
It follows that we can keep the poor warm in winter by heating the rich.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Whan the rich get warm we all get warm....
I think you'll find that the weather has an effect on the temperatures people experience. I have no idea what the weather's like... I've been sitting in here experiencing 72 degrees all day. Although, since the AC's running I can figure its prolly hotter out there.
Don't tell me what I'm doing, especially if you're going to be flagrantly wrong. Well I didn't see where you actually concluded it apart from just stating it.
I didn't claim to such knowledge; I was challenging the people who were "assuming the conclusion" that it didn't. So does TDE work or not?
That was sarcasm. For fuck's sake. Mine too, silly.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Whan the rich get warm we all get warm....
CS writes: Everything you post is a joke. The irony. It burns. That's not irony, stupid. I've not said that I never post anything that is a joke. And there's plenty of examples of my posts that aren't jokes. For you, not so much.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by dronestar, posted 04-19-2012 4:19 PM | | dronestar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 195 by dronestar, posted 04-20-2012 10:45 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
So does TDE work or not? Well, I've yet to see any evidence that it works. What kind of evidence could show you that it works? How would a graph like this one ever show causation?
Nevermind, I see from your other posts where you've talked about that. From Message 39:
It has scarcely become easier for the poor to buy food and heat; it has not become easier for the average family to buy health insurance or to send their kids to college. Making the rich richer has not made everyone richer, it has left many people just the same --- or worse. So much for "trickle down". How do you know that? It seems to me that everyone *is* doing better than 40 years ago, or whatever... that it *is* easier for the poor to get food and heat, and more people are going to college. Too, the median household income has steadily risen. I don't see how things are worse. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 196 of 404 (660014)
04-20-2012 11:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 195 by dronestar
04-20-2012 10:45 AM
|
|
Its still not irony, not even situational irony, dumbass. It would've counted if I ever said that nothing I post is a joke. But I haven't. Sometimes I post things that are a joke, BFD. But for you, everything you post is a joke. You have never once posted anything at all that has ever been worth anyone's time reading ever. Now, would you care to address the topic or what? Its trickle down economics... something that you are too stupid to make an intelligible comment on, or even understand. So why are you even here? Just to cause problems and talk shit. Pathetic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 195 by dronestar, posted 04-20-2012 10:45 AM | | dronestar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 197 by dronestar, posted 04-20-2012 11:41 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 201 of 404 (660022)
04-20-2012 12:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by dronestar
04-20-2012 11:41 AM
|
|
Re: more irony . . .
Well, more worthless crap from you. No offering of anything whatsoever. Do you just not understand how discussion boards work?
quote:
If when the rich people get warmer, everyone else gets warmer too, wouldn't that be the warmth trickling down?
You see, 'tard, that is called a conditional statement. The clue is by it starting with an "If". Sometimes they're referred to as hypotheticals. It is then followed by a question. The clue is by it ending with a question mark. That's this thing: "?" Do you have an analogy for something exhibiting a trickle down effect? Can you provide an answer to the question? Are you even mentally capable of typing something original and on point? Are you capable of providing more than one or two words in more than 1/3 of you posts?
CS writes: Its trickle down economics... something that you are too stupid to make an intelligible comment on Priceless. You've just proved my point. QED. Now, here is the sum total of the original postings by you in this thread:
quote:
The irony. It burns. Which causes the same burning feeling a poor Bedouin of the Sahara feels. (Known widely as the "trickle-eastern" theory.)
quote:
Stupid.
quote:
Priceless.
So what the fuck are you even posting here for? You outta get moosed for being such a pathetic troll. I mean, you're not even good at trolling. Absolutely worthless.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by dronestar, posted 04-20-2012 11:41 AM | | dronestar has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Whan the rich get warm we all get warm....
It would be when the top going up causes the bottom to go up. Obviously. How would you show that causation in a graph like this one? Assuming that TDE did work, wouldn't you expect the graph to show the median going up along with the top?
Dr A's analogy was intended to highlight the stupidity of you assuming that everything rising = some sort of validation for trickle down economics. You seem to be assuming that the rich rising causes the other rises. Do you think that is the case? I don't know, I don't think you can show causation in a graph like this. Its funny tho, that when everyone is towing the line and using the graph against TDE then its all good. But if you use the graph in an argument for TDE then "ZOMG! POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC!!1!"  Real fair, guys.
Why don't you show me where the trickle down effect is in the economic data we have? The median income has risen over the years during TDE policies.
So what exactly has trickled down? Uh, money? Income? I'm not sure what you're asking.
The wealth of the whole nation rose. The incomes of the rich rose considerably (the richer the faster). The incomes of the rest not so much (the poorer the less and the very poorest on minimum wage went backwards). That is what the graph shows. Not exactly. Minimum Wage  The Poor We only have data for the income of two groups. The top 5% and the median. It doesn't show that the poorer the less. And we should expect the rich to rise more than the rest: the more money you got, the more money you can make.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2012 2:26 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 215 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2012 3:03 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Whan the rich get warm we all get warm....
What do you think the main prediction of trickle down economics is? Relieving taxes at the upper end promotes improvement to the economy.
If trickle down economics works then we should expect to see.......? Improvement to the economy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2012 3:03 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 220 of 404 (660076)
04-20-2012 3:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 219 by Rahvin
04-20-2012 3:31 PM
|
|
Re: Whan the rich get warm we all get warm....
"Improvement to the economy" is rather vague. When you say it, I still have no real idea of what specific metrics you might be talking about; given an economy over time, I would not be able to tell whether you think that economy has "improved" or not. Do you mean lower unemployment? Increased GDP? Increased median income? Increased consumer spending? A higher stock market average? Something else? Some aggregate of all of the above? Can you weight each metric such that I can tell whether a .01% increase in employment is better, worse, or equivalent to a .01% increase in GDP? Yeah, I don't know. Working with what we've got, it seems to me that the rise in the median wage show an improving economy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 219 by Rahvin, posted 04-20-2012 3:31 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 221 by Rahvin, posted 04-20-2012 4:15 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: There was a rising tide. But it didn't lift all boats.
Yet the evidence conclusively shows that it is the wealthiest rather than anyone else who have benefited most significantly from that increased productivity. The more money you got, the more money you can make.
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? How are you measuring their contribution?
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? I'd thank the guy let me borrow the money that I needed to double my productivity. Especially if he could've been all: no thanks, the extra income I'm making of that loan is taxed too much to be worth it for me. In that case, how much "contribution" would he've provided in going ahead and letting you have it? Can you see how that action of an increase in your income by using his wealth could be called "trickling down"? If he's got loans all over town, he could be making a disproportionate amount than the people who are providing your true contributions. Trickle Down Economics, in this simplistic hypothetical, would be lowering his tax rate so that he loans out more money thereby boosting the economy and making everyone better off. Asking if its working would basically be asking 'how's the economy doing?'.
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. What data? The charts that were posted in this thread? Howda they show that? ABE: I just saw that other post to me but I gotta go Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 285 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2012 6:12 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 313 of 404 (660407)
04-25-2012 11:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 292 by crashfrog
04-24-2012 8:49 PM
|
|
Re: There was a rising tide. But it didn't lift all boats.
Your productivity is bullshit unless someone actually paid you for it - your employer or your customers. Spending, not investment, is what supports businesses. That's what productivity is - spending. But you have to be able to produce the things that your selling. If you don't have the money to produce them, then there can't be any spending either. Its not just one thing or the other. These days, things are very complex.
Yet the evidence conclusively shows that it is the wealthiest rather than anyone else who have benefited most significantly from that increased productivity.
The more money you got, the more money you can make.
Really? Does that make sense to you, that you can enrich yourself by going into debt? Huh? I'm not following you...
The capacity of the rich to lend makes economies liquid; it doesn't make them grow. Of course, illiquidity can be a drag on growth. Availability of capital is a necessary but not sufficient condition for economic growth. Just ask anybody with maxed out credit cards. Right, but you do have to have that liquid in the first place to begin the growth.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 292 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2012 8:49 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 314 by crashfrog, posted 04-25-2012 1:21 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: There was a rising tide. But it didn't lift all boats.
You had to be able to produce them to get capital, too. People invest in businesses, not in bright ideas. Anybody can have an idea. Isn't venture capital people investing in ideas?
Huh? I'm not following you... It's a simple question. I wasn't following how your simple question had anything to do with what Straggler and I were talking about.
Can you get rich by going into debt? Sure. I know of a company that recently invented a new technology that's just coming onto the market. I could borrow a bunch of money (go into debt) and invest in their company and then after they take off and their stock goes up I could sell it, pay off my debt, and have a shit-pile of money (get rich). So there it is, getting rich by going into debt.
It's the same with a business. "Investment" means "debt", because the people who invest money in your business eventually expect to be paid back - with interest. Whether or not you've made any money. Just like Capital One doesn't care that you got laid off when the credit card bill comes due, investors don't care if your business is roaring or not when they come to get paid back. If you can't pay, they'll seize and sell off your business assets until they're made whole, and then where is your productivity? Of course if you fail you loose money, that's beside the point. It was about who is going to make more money on the whole deal; the guy who loaned the money that allowed the increase in productivity, or the people who borrowed the money and then got more productive. It could be either way, depending on the deal, but the fact that in the case under consideration it was the guy who loaned the money doesn't mean that the guy who borrowed it didn't benefit from the whole deal. Here's what he said:
quote:
Yet the evidence conclusively shows that it is the wealthiest rather than anyone else who have benefited most significantly from that increased productivity.
Its easier to make money, if you already have money.
Right, but you do have to have that liquid in the first place to begin the growth. Necessary but not sufficient. Liquidity in an economy makes growth possible, but it doesn't make it happen. Right. But you do need that money to make money in the first place. And the more money you got in the beginning, the more money you can make in the end. ABE: From Message 315:
Your graph and Straggler's demonstrate that the money did come from productivity gains. How is the graph showing causation?
Investments have to be paid back - with interest. Debt primarily functions to transfer wealth to the lender from the lendee. That's why they lend. Not necessarily. If the total wealth grows, then we can both make money. Like when you mortgage a house and the property value increases. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 314 by crashfrog, posted 04-25-2012 1:21 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 318 of 404 (660428)
04-25-2012 2:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 317 by Rahvin
04-25-2012 2:13 PM
|
|
Overall, your argument doesn't really go against the prinicples of Trickle Down Economics. Your more arguing against the unfairness of the behavior of certain portions of the rich who were engaging in what should be criminal activity.
When CEOs fail utterly at their jobs and drive businesses into bankruptcy, What's funny about the recent Great Recession, is that the CEOs didn't even understand what they were getting into. Some companies were trading synthetic CDOs, which was an entirely newly created marketplace, that nobody really understood the full ramifications of. It was an unprecidented change in banking transactions that were completely hidden from any regulation because they were private deals.
Whether you invest $10 or $100,000, you should both get the same rate of return, whether it's 1% or 50%. I'm not sure about that one... why should they be the same?
There's a huge problem when more money makes disproportionately more money. The guy who invested 1% shouldn't be getting a 1% return if the guy who invested $100,000 is getting a 60% return. I think that's more of a problem with greed than it is the economic policy working or not.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 317 by Rahvin, posted 04-25-2012 2:13 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 319 by Percy, posted 04-25-2012 3:15 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
