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.
"Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it."
No I don't believe in "trickle down" economics. I do know Hillary Clinton is not the president. A magnificent win for the American people.
That brilliant revelation and well thought out conclusion does so much to negate anything the OP stated. Wait! Don't tell me...you are one of those folks that thinks the swindler-in chief is a genius and has your best interest at heart. Oh brother
That brilliant revelation and well thought out conclusion does so much to negate anything the OP stated. Wait! Don't tell me...you are one of those folks that thinks the swindler-in chief is a genius and has your best interest at heart. Oh brother
Probably not. Trump supporters were not stupid enough to believe that a YouTube video caused a preplanned terrorist attack. That was Trump's opponents who were that mind-numbingly stupid.
Trickle-down theories don't make sense if you consider variation of purchasing power over time and the inflation curve.
The rich is supposed to receive extra money and spend it, invest it, consume with it to create wealth for those with less. But the 1% and the finance industry, those receiving the bulk of the investment returns are at the front of the inflation curve -they get that money before everyone else. By the time the 99% receive something from the 1% spending, that wealth would have had time to circulate within the economy and translates to less purchasing power. Inflation, by then, would have settled in and goods/services would have increased in price (as everyone now have more money to spend).
Anyone who doesn't believe this, or that trickle down economics do not work as advertised need only look at the wealth distribution 1% vs 99% since Reagan. We have long term data to determine results. Another clue is that even the republicans have stopped/drastically decreased the term's usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
When corporations make more money my 401K along with millions of other Americans 401K goes up.
Most of my wealth is due to trickle down economics. Thanks, Ronnie.
Sure, I like my returns too when the market goes up. But know that the more you have to invest, the more advantageous the products and services offered to you. The truly wealthy get decreased risk and increased returns, not to mention access to more and more tax avoidance specialists.
Once my wife graduated medschool and started making full salary, banks were suddenly interested in offering us more and more services (a lot of it geared towards tax avoidance). Certainly opened my eyes. It is far easier to make money once you already have it.
Breaking News: When rich people get a tax cut, or in this case a license to pollute, the savings don't trickle down, they call it profit and they collect it.
Agreed.
'Supply Side' economics (basis of the 'trickle-down' theory) introduced as a buzzword by Reagan, does not actually work as claimed. We have a thirty year history of this failed experiment (which George H. W. Bush famously called voodoo economics), and it has resulted in the greatest wealth gap in modern American history, and no prevented job losses in traditional industries.
Companies always retain established higher prices and higher margins unless competitive pressures force them to reduce prices. There is no incentive to invest in job creating enterprises (and accompanying risk) if the core business is handsomely profitable. Reducing taxes makes the core business even more profitable, and the money is distributed as dividends to hopefully boost the stock price. The key here is 'shareholder value', employing the community is not part of the equation.
Investment capital generated by these means can just as easily be invested in Asia or elsewhere, and any potential 'trickle down' effect can then benefit foreign workers and foreign economies.
The trickle down theory is a mind game played upon gullible voters.
What is most shameful here is that Donald Trump, the messiah of the working person, is unabashedly taking care of himself and his class, not the common people.
'Supply Side' economics (basis of the 'trickle-down' theory) introduced as a buzzword by Reagan, does not actually work as claimed. We have a thirty year history of this failed experiment (which George H. W. Bush famously called voodoo economics), and it has resulted in the greatest wealth gap in modern American history, and no prevented job losses in traditional industries.
Companies always retain established higher prices and higher margins unless competitive pressures force them to reduce prices. There is no incentive to invest in job creating enterprises (and accompanying risk) if the core business is handsomely profitable. Reducing taxes makes the core business even more profitable, and the money is distributed as dividends to hopefully boost the stock price. The key here is 'shareholder value', employing the community is not part of the equation.
Investment capital generated by these means can just as easily be invested in Asia or elsewhere, and any potential 'trickle down' effect can then benefit foreign workers and foreign economies.
The trickle down theory is a mind game played upon gullible voters.
What is most shameful here is that Donald Trump, the messiah of the working person, is unabashedly taking care of himself and his class, not the common people.
The more money you have, the more you can invest and the more returns you can make. The more returns you make, means you can invest even more than before and the more you'll get again.
However, most people on the bottom have the ability to slowly increase their financial standing as long as the government doesn't screw it up. Do you think quantitative easing impacts the poor the same as the rich? If not, who benefits from QE?
Another logical negating of the OP and great defense of the birther troll in The White House. And you speak of irony...LOL. You more than proved my point...thanks.
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.
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.
