U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 05:54 PM
 
3 posts, read 284 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

"Trickle down" economics is a fallacy in that it assumes that people who work, or people who have money, or anyone really, is somehow responsible for surrendering their own money to the government at gun point in order for that money to fund drug addicts, single mothers, idiots, lazy people, and criminals. The drug addict's problems and the single mother with eight kids' problems are their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 06:46 PM
 
4,591 posts, read 1,702,842 times
Reputation: 5848
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
+1

I'm still waiting for a real life example of "if Demand Side policies are pursued, then economic activity will increase as the lower and middle classes have more discretionary income. This will increase revenue, sales and profits at businesses. The wealthy will make more money and profits with demand side. It's a feedback loop."

It sounds fascinating.
Example 1: "Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?

The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It wasn't even close. The economy performed dramatically better in almost every way once Supply Side policies were replaced with Demand Side policies."


Example 2: From 1/1/2013 to 1/1/2019 California raised the minimum wage from $8 to $12, a 50% increase. At the same time unemployment fell from 9.6% to 4.2%. Many pundits that such a sharp increase in the minimum wage would cause increased unemployment and business failures. They were wrong and the opposite happened -- people at the low end of the wage scales had more discretionary income, they spent money at local businesses, who had to hire up to meet demand.

... and in addition, some of this country's most prosperous times were in the 1950's and early 1960's, during the golden age of Keynesianism. Supply side -- with Reagan and Bush -- are associated with times of increased deficits and, often, recessions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:59 PM
 
4,511 posts, read 2,371,172 times
Reputation: 3832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Example 1: "Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?

The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.
The 1990s economy had less to do with tax policy than it had to do with the first tech bubble and cheap money.

The tech bubble bursting in early 2000 showed how weak and dependent on cheap money that the Clinton economy really was, and the subsequent recession (which you didn't bring up), helped Chairman Alan Greenspan coin the phrase, “irrational exuberance.” Remember that one?

Perhaps the WORST effect of the Clinton economy was setting the table for the late 2000s Great Recession. Clinton was the one who signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which lead to a huge expansion of Mortgage-backed securities and subprime loans in the 2000s as part of a broader “financialization” of the U.S. economy that contributed directly to the severity of the Great Recession.

Even far lefty Bernie Sanders argued that Clinton’s deregulation of the banking industry paved the way for the crisis.

Quote:
From 1/1/2013 to 1/1/2019 California raised the minimum wage from $8 to $12, a 50% increase. At the same time unemployment fell from 9.6% to 4.2%. Many pundits that such a sharp increase in the minimum wage would cause increased unemployment and business failures. They were wrong and the opposite happened -- people at the low end of the wage scales had more discretionary income, they spent money at local businesses, who had to hire up to meet demand.
This could be true, but you didn't post any numbers to back up your point. California continues to be #1 in poverty using the new Census adjusted measure (2016).

Care to show your numbers on business failures, and QoL measures?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:21 PM
 
Location: USA
141 posts, read 73,267 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
The 1990s economy had less to do with tax policy than it had to do with the first tech bubble and cheap money.

The tech bubble bursting in early 2000 showed how weak and dependent on cheap money that the Clinton economy really was, and the subsequent recession (which you didn't bring up), helped Chairman Alan Greenspan coin the phrase, “irrational exuberance.” Remember that one?

Perhaps the WORST effect of the Clinton economy was setting the table for the late 2000s Great Recession. Clinton was the one who signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which lead to a huge expansion of Mortgage-backed securities and subprime loans in the 2000s as part of a broader “financialization” of the U.S. economy that contributed directly to the severity of the Great Recession.

Even far lefty Bernie Sanders argued that Clinton’s deregulation of the banking industry paved the way for the crisis.



This could be true, but you didn't post any numbers to back up your point. California continues to be #1 in poverty using the new Census adjusted measure (2016).

Care to show your numbers on business failures, and QoL measures?


"Clinton economy was setting the table for the late 2000s Great Recession."

o.m.f.g.

Are you really so brainwashed that you think a democratic president constantly battling a republican congress's impeachment efforts single handedly caused the great recession of 2008?? Seriously?? 7 YEARS LATER??? omg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:24 PM
 
1,715 posts, read 606,155 times
Reputation: 3219
no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:27 PM
 
875 posts, read 331,064 times
Reputation: 1571
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE1SG View Post
"Clinton economy was setting the table for the late 2000s Great Recession."

o.m.f.g.

Are you really so brainwashed that you think a democratic president constantly battling a republican congress's impeachment efforts single handedly caused the great recession of 2008?? Seriously?? 7 YEARS LATER??? omg.



Did you read this part...
"Clinton was the one who signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which lead to a huge expansion of Mortgage-backed securities and subprime loans in the 2000s"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:59 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
12,309 posts, read 7,859,403 times
Reputation: 18048
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacInTx View Post
Did you read this part...
"Clinton was the one who signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which lead to a huge expansion of Mortgage-backed securities and subprime loans in the 2000s"
It's sad.
The lenders were doing what they were required by law to do, then they took all the heat by "creating a mortgage crisis".
It was congress who created the crisis. The President signed off on it, but congress created it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:00 PM
 
11,053 posts, read 20,620,677 times
Reputation: 10422
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
Why not a reduction in spending?
I'm all for a reduction and I'm sure there is a little fat that can be cut. However go ahead and peruse the federal budget and take a gander at the places we spend our money. Most people are unwilling to cut the military at all nor are we willing to touch social security (mostly self funded) and Medicaid. Those are the three primary drivers of our budget, to put things in perspective in order to balance the budget you'd have to cut 100% military or Medicaid or 50% of both and you'd still be $300b a year short.

All the extra fluff you read about is just that, it has little impact overall even cumulatively.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:06 PM
 
11,053 posts, read 20,620,677 times
Reputation: 10422
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE1SG View Post
"Clinton economy was setting the table for the late 2000s Great Recession."

o.m.f.g.

Are you really so brainwashed that you think a democratic president constantly battling a republican congress's impeachment efforts single handedly caused the great recession of 2008?? Seriously?? 7 YEARS LATER??? omg.
Well the fed was also at fault, not raising rates fast enough. However they used housing as the driver of growth because there were little manufacturing jobs anymore. It was pretty much all they had. FWIW Yellen literally said the same thing, so no surprise we've seen a huge run up in prices under her as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:16 PM
 
2,023 posts, read 832,239 times
Reputation: 8030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Well, that's a dark take on it. If that's true then we might as well open the gates at the Treasury and Fort Knox and just let the wealthy walk in and help themselves.
What makes you think that hasn't already been done?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top