Summations Only

I've read this several times to see if I've missed a joke. I don't think I have.You are describing the "hand me down" effect and not the trickle down effect. I have indeed owned several used cars, but I'm utterly convinced that the poor slob who once owned the Cierra Cutlass, the big Buick, and the Toyota Maxima that I purchased as used, was not a rich dude, but was instead another middle class guy in approximately the same salary bracket as myself, but with a slightly higher penchant for spending.Trickle down would be when the rich man uses his money to buy a Rolls at a dealership, and then hires a driver and employs a mechanic. The car dealer, the driver, and mechanic are benefiting from trickle down economics created by the rich man's wealth.But I'm never going to own that previously own Rolls. There is some trickle down economics associated with every sale, but getting to buy used stuff from rich people is not trickle down.And one might well ask whether just giving 100 guys like me some money and allowing us to buy new Vegas would not stimulate the economy just as much as giving one rich person enough money to buy a Rolls. Why does stuff have to pass through Bill Gates and Oprah's hands before I get it?

I accept your correction. But I'd credit any trickling down of wealth that resulted from giving rich people more money as a justification for trickle down (or more accurately "voodoo") economics. But as has been pointed out, there is absolutely no evidence that any trickle down theory works. I am really at a loss to figure out what Percy's point is and I don't want to weigh in until I do understand. Just thought I would have some fun with 77's post in the meantime.

Not necessarily. The median is not completely insensitive to changes at the extremes. The median is less sensitive to those changes than is the mean. But the median is more sensitive to changes at the upper and lower ends of a population than is the mode. It is possible that most or all of the increase in the median is due to the top few percent doing extremely well.Of course it does follow that if there is an increase in the media, we have to do a bit more analysis in order to rule out trickle down to the middle class.That said it does seem quite clear from the graphs presented that the lowest classes are not seeing any benefit of trickle down. The graphs in fact suggest that most of the increase is almost exclusively shared by the uppermost classes. I don't see how people are able to deny this. Hopefully I've debunked the idea that the median means everybody.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, it does not.First, nobody is saying that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. People are saying that giving more money to rich people does not help the poor. People are also complaining about trickle down policies that include tax cuts for the reach funded by cuts in social services under a theory that such is the way to help out the poor and middle class.The graphs do not say anything about social services provide to help the poor funded by taxes. It appears that if we benefit the rich by cutting social services to give the rich money, as best as I can tell, the poor never see any benefit and are worse off.

Yes, it could. And such a marketing plan would be a 'trickle down' marketing plan because the deregulation itself would be a benefit given directly to business and not to the consumer. In essense the marketing would suggest that the resulting effect of deregulation to reduce the corporations costs of doing business would be to the consumer's ultimate benefit.Exactly what do you mean your argument to accomplish? Shouldn't you have proposed an argument that cannot be cast as "trickle down" because the benefit to consumers is direct? Are you having a problem coming up with such examples?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, but the benefit given by the government, as you cast it in your post, comes from deregulation. It is deregulation that is the direct government action, and increased competition that is the indirect result. You don't really seem to have a point or an issue. Unless you can come up with a deregulation action that directly creates a competitor, then "increased competition" is an indirect result of a government action that directly lowers the cost of doing business for corporations.And in any event, we can best probe your argument by coming up with a specific deregulation that directly innures to consumers without first filtering through banks, corps, etc. Did you have one in mind?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, you are right. That would not be a reduction of corporate cost.You are also being obtuse. No one is arguing that increased competition is not a consumer benefit. What is being said is that government deregulations designed to create competition do so by reducing the cost to business.Now if the government created a regulation that forced manufacturers to create a common sim card, that wouldn't be deregulation, would it? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Grrr. add clarity.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.