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.
You would be better off presenting an argument than simply insisting.
Quote:
When companies have money they will expand.
This is not a law of nature, where do you get this stuff? Companies can have tons of capital and completely fail to expand. Money can be funneled off to investors or senior management just as easily. WTF do you think Bain Capital did for a living?
Quote:
Demand is nice when you have the capital to meet that demand.
Demand isn't "nice" - in a market economy, demand is everything. A few visionaries can go out and create new demand, and good on them - those are your Steve Jobs types. Money tends to find them.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 03-07-2017 at 03:50 PM..
Interesting historical perspective on the issue from the Richmond Times-Dispatch:
<<They managed this con job partly with a propaganda technique that will be familiar to modern Americans, but hasn’t received the coverage it deserves in our sesquicentennial celebrations. Starting in the 1840s wealthy Southerners supported more than 30 regional pro-slavery magazines, many pamphlets, newspapers and novels that falsely touted slave ownership as having benefits that would – in today’s lingo – trickle down to benefit non-slave owning whites and even blacks. The flip side of the coin of this old-is-new trickle-down propaganda is the mistaken notion that any gain by blacks in wages, schools or health care comes at the expense of the white working class.
Today’s version of this con job no longer supports slavery, but still works in the South and thrives in pro trickle-down think tanks, magazines, newspapers, talk radio and TV news shows such as the Cato Foundation, Reason magazine, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. These sources are underwritten by pro trickle-down one-per-centers like the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch.
For example, a map of states that didn’t expand Medicaid – which would actually be a boon mostly to poor whites – resembles a map of the old Confederacy with a few other poor, rural states thrown in. Another indication that this divisive propaganda works on Southern whites came in 2012. Romney and Obama evenly split the white working class in the West, Midwest and Northeast. But in the South we went 2-1 for Romney.>>
Yes - the premise is based that the rich will spend and/or invest more - which will keep more people employed receiving wages... so that the employed people will have money to go to the movies.
The billionaire may not buy 1000 tickets directly... but through employing 1000 people in his company - he indirectly is the source for 1000 people buying movie tickets.
You are not defending trickle down here. You are defending capitalism. Trickle down economics needs to be separated from the profit motive. Believe me if the movie executive could make a profit with 100 vs. 1000 employees, there would be 900 layoff notices in the mail tomorrow.
Americans have been sold a bill of goods for thirty years that trickle down works. How are y'all doing out there? Is it a success?
Trickle down is a tax break for the wealthy that can be invested in any one of a thousand ways.
A billionaire will spend as much money as he/she sees fit. Let's call that amount X.
The billionaire makes X + Y where Y is money that they don't spend but they invest in that hundred ways that I mention above. When you cut their taxes it adds to Y. X remains the same. They spend the same amount that they would have anyway. Trickle down is no break for any class but the rich.
Your postulation that they would employ more people than they need to keep the business profitable is absurd.
As luck would have it, we run the numbers on such things.
First, we're off the "investing" and back to simple consumption spending, right? Cool.
Have you heard of the multiplier effect? It's the idea that when an actor in the economic system gets a sum of money, he'll spend a certain fraction of that, the recipient will spend a fraction that, so on and so forth. It means that we can insert $1 into the system (say, a tax cut) and, if each actor in the chain is inclined to spend, get way more than $1 of economic activity out of it. In fact, more inclined to spend they are, the more economic benefit.
Turns out the poor are way more inclined to spend than the rich. This makes sense. They're poor, because all of their money returns to circulation very quickly - that is, in fact, a working definition of "poor". The likelihood that a poor guy will spend the heck out of $50 is extremely high, the likelihood that a rich guy will is much lower. This is what Drewjdeg brought up - marginal propensity to consume. And that is provably higher for low-income people than for high-income ones. (It's damn expensive to be poor.)
If you're formulating economic policy to encourage money changing hands - and that is what an economy is - trickle-down is, indeed, voodoo. Or as I put upthread - horses and sparrows.
ETA: DAMN you, Drewjdeg, for your fast typing!
It's not even worth arguing this anymore...it won't sink in...the Fox News Trumpster crowd is just programmed at this point to believe the super wealthy are better than normal people (except rust belt unemployed factory workers- they are salt of the earth!!! ...The rest of us are just supposed ot fight over the crumbs- that's our sole purpose in life- give all our money and all benefits to the rich and hopefully some of it will fall out of their pockets and we can pick it up..that's literally the plan...
You are not defending trickle down here. You are defending capitalism. Trickle down economics needs to be separated from the profit motive. Believe me if the movie executive could make a profit with 100 vs. 1000 employees, there would be 900 layoff notices in the mail tomorrow.
Americans have been sold a bill of goods for thirty years that trickle down works. How are y'all doing out there? Is it a success?
Trickle down is a tax break for the wealthy that can be invested in any one of a thousand ways.
A billionaire will spend as much money as he/she sees fit. Let's call that amount X.
The billionaire makes X + Y where Y is money that they don't spend but they invest in that hundred ways that I mention above. When you cut their taxes it adds to Y. X remains the same. They spend the same amount that they would have anyway. Trickle down is no break for any class but the rich.
Your postulation that they would employ more people than they need to keep the business profitable is absurd.
So if Y gets bigger, aka investing more, isn't that a good thing for the poor?
There is no such thing as an economic theory called "trickle down". It is nothing but a scare tactic used by the left to maintain a highly stratified progressive tax system.
White working class, (especially southern white working class) have been screwed for a long time. Hard to compete against black slave labor, and still hard to compete against brown cheap labor. Po' white folk just can't catch a break.
So if Y gets bigger, aka investing more, isn't that a good thing for the poor?
Things get slow so the markets decided to jack things up. Oil goes to near $150 a barrel. Gas over $4.00. There are NO fundementals to justify this.
Things got bigger but the poor got hurt bad.
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.
...The rest of us are just supposed ot fight over the crumbs- that's our sole purpose in life- give all our money and all benefits to the rich and hopefully some of it will fall out of their pockets and we can pick it up..that's literally the plan...
