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 01-28-2019, 11:18 PM
 
337 posts, read 58,646 times
Reputation: 546

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Trickle down, once again, has proven to not trickle. Capital injected at the top is sticky, it stays up there.
There is no such thing as "trickle down economics." It was first coined by humorist Will Rodgers back in the 1930s, and it is a shibboleth of the left ever since. It is a straw man. There are no Professors of Trickle Down Economics. There is no class anywhere in the world titled "Econ 357: Trickle Down Economics."

It doesn't exist. Stop saying it is a thing. It isn't a thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
"Most firms haven't accelerated hiring or investments as a result of the tax-cut law enacted by Republicans last year, according to a new survey by the National Association for Business Economics (NABE). Eighty-one percent of NABE members surveyed said the 2017 law, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, hasn't led their firms to make changes to hiring or investment plans"
The press release summary is misleading. While it is true that 81% report making no significant changes in the quantity of hiring or capital budgets, they have indeed made changes in the LOCATION of those hiring and capital plans as a result of the change in tax law. Capital is flowing back into the USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-28-2019, 11:22 PM
 
337 posts, read 58,646 times
Reputation: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber View Post
the wealthy business class
There is no wealthy business class. It doesn't exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber View Post
...plutocratic construct
There is no plutocratic construct. It doesn't exist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber View Post
The considerable hierarchy of losers..
There is no hierarchy of losers. It doesn't exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2019, 11:39 PM
 
337 posts, read 58,646 times
Reputation: 546
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.
Clinton had help in the form of Henry Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Roberta Achtenberg, disgraced former Assistant Secretary of HUD for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, both of whom served during the first Clinton Administration.

Achtenberg and her boss HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros believed that for the bulk of the 20th century, Dad had a job, and his compensation put food on the table, clothes on the backs of the family, and most importantly, a roof over their head.

By the latter part of the 1980s, the model seemed to have been flipped on its head. A house became the major source of a family's wealth, and Dad's job (and Mom's too) was a source to pay the mortgage -- and the magic of leverage-based housing price appreciation did its job. After all, housing prices only go up, right?

The Federal Government's fear was that those who did not own residential real estate would be left at the station while owners were on the train leading to permanent wealth.

Moreover, the Federal Government observed that those left at the station were disproportionately poor (duh) and were people-of-color (which is why the disgraced Achtenberg's section of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity got involved.) The Federal Government saw this as a "wrong" that needed to be "righted" via federal intervention.

How did our government respond?

Beginning in 1992, under Achtenberg's leadership, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities, giving a leg-up to the poor and more specifically poor people-of-color. The original quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.

It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.

Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 (2nd Clinton Administration) under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.

27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation (Liar Loans), or required only interest payments.

Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from.

The huge government investment in subprime mortgages achieved its purpose. Home ownership in the U.S. increased to 69% from 65% (where it had been for 30 years). But it also led to the biggest housing bubble in American history. This bubble, which lasted from 1997 to 2007, also created a huge private market for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) based on pools of subprime loans.

As housing bubbles grow, rising prices suppress delinquencies and defaults. People who could not meet their mortgage obligations could refinance or sell, because their houses were now worth more.

Accordingly, by the mid-2000s, investors had begun to notice that securities based on subprime mortgages were producing the high yields, but not showing the large number of defaults that are usually associated with subprime loans. This triggered strong investor demand for these securities, causing the growth of the first significant private market for MBS based on subprime and other risky mortgages.

By 2008 this market consisted of about 7.8 million subprime loans, nearly one-third of the 27 million that were then outstanding.

Then the government-caused bubble popped. And the rest, as they say, is history. The Federal Government caused it -- all in the name of social engineering by the Department of Housing and Urban Development under William Jefferson Clinton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:12 AM
 
27,508 posts, read 38,851,233 times
Reputation: 35601
The only trickle down I've noticed is the urine they splash on our shoes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:46 AM
Status: "Was it for this my life I sought?" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Posting from my space yacht.
7,251 posts, read 2,772,263 times
Reputation: 13329
The terms "trickle down" and "supply side" have become too politicized to have a real conversation about. As soon as people hear those terms they just separate in to their political camps and start hurling talking points at each other. Minds slam shut on both sides of the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Texas
42,665 posts, read 50,873,763 times
Reputation: 68379
All I know is that when MY taxes went up, my spending/hiring went down. People lost work/jobs.

And when they dropped, my spending/hiring went up.

On a smaller scale, it seems to make sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Shawnee-on-Delaware, PA
3,770 posts, read 3,381,748 times
Reputation: 6845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Well, you can make Demand Side fail by using reductio ad absurdum. Well done.

Reductio ad absurdum? I wish. There is no sign of health care or college cost increases slowing down. The idea of even a small tax cut is met with howls and charges of treason, and the natural tendency is for taxes to rise and new taxes to be implemented. The middle class is shrinking and what's left of it is way worse off than their parents were.


Quote:
Seriously, one thing the wealthy and corporations haven't caught on to (or they don't want to): since demand is currently constrained, 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.
The amount of easy credit that's available today means that demand is not constrained in the least. In past generations people were averse to borrowing and that kept the lid on demand.


Figure out how to get Corporations to rein in easy credit and then let's talk about the need more Demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:31 AM
 
3,222 posts, read 1,361,328 times
Reputation: 2392
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
There is no wealthy business class. It doesn't exist.



There is no plutocratic construct. It doesn't exist.




There is no hierarchy of losers. It doesn't exist.
What about aliens?

What about big foot?

What about martians?

Please tell me. Do they exist?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:56 AM
 
3,768 posts, read 3,114,771 times
Reputation: 10441
[quote=RationalExpectations;54282006]There is no wealthy business class. It doesn't exist.



There is no plutocratic construct. It doesn't exist.




There is no hierarchy of losers. It doesn't exist.[/QUOTE


Donald? Is that you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:25 AM
 
27,508 posts, read 38,851,233 times
Reputation: 35601
Got my boots on. It's gettin' deep.
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