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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,590,333 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Trickle down economics is like putting a Big Block V8 into a Chevy Vega (subcompact car) but syphoning off the fuel. And then the car will wonder why it can't go anywhere 😒
But can you list a real life example like the following,
When you give poor people tax cuts they have extra money. They then use that extra money to buy medicines, new clothes, and painting supplies to improve their homes (and those purchases give extra money to drug manufacturers, clothing stores, and paint manufacturers.) And if those poor peoples extra income was permanent it would cause new jobs to be created to supply the extra goods and services those poor people would demand.
Can you list a real life example like the above showing how billionaires who get tax cuts stimulate the economy or create new jobs?
Supply side/trickle down economics was developed by the corporations and CEO's that give republican politicians their campaign money. And it was simply designed to lower corporate and CEO's tax rates and increase corporate profits.
Billionaires having more money does not stimulate the economy or create jobs. Rather innovative new products, in demand products and services, and demand for products and services stimulates the economy and creates new jobs.
Someone like Bill Gates can not stimulate the economy or create jobs by having extra money. In order for Bill Gates to stimulate the economy he needs a in demand product or service (and consumers with money to purchase those goods and services.)
Our goal should be to give poor people more money. Then those poor people will be able to afford computers (and when those poor people buy computers they will give billionaires like Bill Gates money.)
But when you give Bill Gates tax cuts instead of the poor the poor can't even afford computers, and its the act of a poor person buying a new computer that stimulates the economy and creates jobs (not Bill Gates having an extra $10 billion dollars.)
Not a single tax cut in the world doesn't benefit the rich.
In demand products and services do not stimulate the economy, not at all. I came from a communist country where everything was in dying demand, from toothpaste, toilet paper to TVs. Even if someone had money to buy them, they weren't available for purchase. It's simply because there's no capital or investment to produce, transport, distribute those products and services.
When rich people have extra money, they invest it. Again, it's the investment that stimulate the economy, not the demand. One can have the best of the best innovation in the human history, no way in hell that person can make the innovation available to everybody without investment.
What do you mean "give the poor people more money"? Rob the rich to pay the poor? That's communist, no? The poor people need to learn how earn more money.
Ah, I finally understand the meaning of life and the oppression I am suffering due to this wonderful lecture by progressive ideology. All praise Marx, all praise Communism! The collective is good!
Most/all of those companies were formed in a regular Americans garage or college dorm room. It was not wealthy people who created those companies and all the jobs they produce (it was the in demand products and services those regular Americans invented, not billionaires having extra money.)
I apologize if I have been rude (I did not intend to be.)
Chad.
OK, this is factual, not political.
Yes, they did form the companies, which is factually correct. I can form a company in 20 minutes without leaving my desk. It means jack squat.
Without venture capitals, all those companies would be just a fart in the wind.
For example:
"Apple was incorporated January 3, 1977,[29] without Wayne, who sold his share of the company back to Jobs and Wozniak for $800. Multimillionaire Mike Markkula provided essential business expertise and funding of $250,000 during the incorporation of Apple." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_..._incorporation
Initial funding[edit]
Facebook was initially incorporated as a Florida LLC. For the first few months after its launch in February 2004, the costs for the website operations for thefacebook.com were paid for by Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin, who had taken equity stakes in the company. The website also ran a few advertisements to meet its operating costs.[55]
First angel investment[edit] In the summer of 2004, venture capitalist Peter Thiel made a $500,000 angel investment in the social network Facebook for 10.2% of the company and joined Facebook's board. This was the first outside investment in Facebook.
The first funding for Google as a company was secured in August 1998 in the form of a US$100,000 contribution from Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, given to a corporation which did not yet exist.[27]
Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon... have proven that to be true over and over and over and over again.
Yes, and what made these companies game changers - a few people with very good ideas or a hedge fund manager with an extra $10 million in spending money? This is supposedly a market economy. First you deliver, then you build wealth.
Were you around during the dot-com boom? A perfect case of a surplus of money slushing around, a complete lack of smarts, and a textbook case of why that combination inevitably leads to boom-bust cycles.
When you give tax cuts to poor and middle class Americans they spend the money.
They spend the money in grocery stores buying food and medicines (and this gives money to farmers and drug manufacturers and stimulates their businesses.)
They spend the money improving their homes (and this gives money to construction workers, paint manufacturers, and furniture manufacturers and stimulates their businesses.)
They spend money in restaurants (and this gives money to the restaurant owners, workers, and food suppliers.)
They spend the money buying TV's and computers (and this gives money to the large corporations that sell those products.)
And they spend the money buying telephone, cable TV, and internet access (and this gives money to the large corporations that provide those services and stimulates their businesses.)
How does giving money to wealthy Americans by tax cuts stimulate the economy?
Amazon raised a series A of $8M from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in 1995. In 1997, Amazon went public to raise additional capital. By 1999, the value of the Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers investment in Amazon created returns of over 55,000%.
Yes, and what made these companies game changers - a few people with very good ideas or a hedge fund manager with an extra $10 million in spending money? This is supposedly a market economy. First you deliver, then you build wealth.
Were you around during the dot-com boom? A perfect case of a surplus of money slushing around, a complete lack of smarts, and a textbook case of why that combination inevitably leads to boom-bust cycles.
Without the rich people's money, you would be able to deliver jack squat. That's my point here.
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.
