Does it work?
Do you support it?
If not what is the superior economic system?
>>76526992
stop calling it trickle down economics.
all it is, is across the board tax cuts.
It stimulates job growth and investment, because people, including corporations, require lots of money to pay salaries, and start and grow businesses, obviously.
Lower class people benefit less from tax cuts, directly, but indirectly, they benefit, because they will have more job opportunities.
>>76526992
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/07/the-trickledown-lie-n1772687
>>76526992
"Trickle down economics" is a meme.
In general, cutting taxes will spur some economic growth (more disposable income), but it's not some magic trick to grow your economy instantly in two seconds. The liberal fantasy of raising taxes = good is even more stupid.
>>76527351
>If there is ever a contest for the biggest lie in politics, this one should be a top contender.
>While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the "trickle-down" lie is 100 percent lie.
>It should win the contest both because of its purity -- no contaminating speck of truth -- and because of how many people have repeated it over the years, without any evidence being asked for or given.
>Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this "trickle-down" theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a "trickle-down" policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.
>>76526992
It does work but not with globalism
>>76526992
Trickle down doesn't exist; it's a meme made up by the left to paint conservatives negatively in the politcal sphere.. What Reagan intended to do was to cut taxes to increase gov't revenue because history has shown that rich ppl will flat out not pay taxes if the tax rates are too high.
>>76527254
>>76527483
But what if the wealthiest Jews hoard most of the money at the top instead of reinvesting?
The US has gone too far with "supply-side economics" in general. It goes very, VERY badly with globalization and cheap, illegal labor (for American workers anyway; makes plenty of other people very happy).
>>76526992
It only works in a non-global economy. Right now all the wealthy are investing their earnings in Asia which is incidentally one of the only places with a growing middle class.
>>76526992
You tell me, goy
>>76526992
>>76527721
>wealthy hoarding money meme
Doesn't happen.
>>76527739
Now this I agree with. All supply side has done for us is give us cheap ass goods at the cost of decimating our manufacturing base.
>>76526992
If by trickle down economics you mean the Chicago school of economics (Friedman's school) then not only does it not work but spits in the face of the most basic principles of Economics
>>76526992
trickle down doesnt work
a rich person does not buy 2000 cellphones. Even buying a yacht is not the equivalent of the money that 2000 people would have used.
the actual money that is from the other 1900 people, is being stored overseas. Or very, very rarely used by people like soros who trickles it down to protestors to change the world to his favor.
>>76526992
Supply side works. That's why Brazil is on track to be an economic superpower while the West is declining.
>>76527721
Heh, and with international finance it gets even more dodgy.
>reinvesting
They will trade it a lot too while completely avoiding risk. It seems that Wall Street has gotten extremely good at getting a bigger share of the produced wealth instead of actually driving greater wealth production.
I don't actually understand how this all works; my jewish power-level is quite low... But I'm suspicious as fuck.
>>76527834
Keep importing poor, uneducated people, get that blue line.
>>76527858
>Doesn't happen
>what are hedge funds
>what is the "dead money" phenomenon
Ameridiots are LITERALLY this stupid
>>76526992
Golden showers are for perverts that like to get pissed on.
>>76528246
>hedge funds is hoarding money
wew lad
>>76528246
I don't think you understand what a hedge fund does anon.
>>76527254
it's unbelievable that people still unironically believe this.
>>76526992
Post Keynesianism
>>76527254
So why hasn't it done any of that?
>>76527858
>cheap ass goods
Which is good; everyone is a consumer, but not everyone is a worker. But it has consequences too. Corporations becoming too powerful, taking over the democratic process and demoralizing workers in so many ways. It's wrong to look at just the economics of it; there are social and political effects as well. We're destroying western culture for cheap plastic crap and corporate profits...
>>76528085
Not even that. Leftist always talk bout duh 1% - even though the 1% is ALWAYS better off under leftist. Socialism (democrats goal with #HillaryArtillery and #BernBros) always puts anyone below the top .1 of the 1% into a welfare state.
I don't even want to fight it anymore. I get so tired of having to argue my points - which advance everyone - to lefties, which advance rich people.
kill me
>>76528588
Democracy is a meme. Most western democracies are really just oligarchies that occasionally allow then proles to vote on who will be enacting the elites' preferred policies.
So what's trumps plan other than getting jobs back in America? I completely support it but is that all it takes?
>>76528440
>he thinks Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama are using trickledown
>>76526992
No economics works. All economics in the west are just deriving from the same three or some guys. Hayek, Keynes, and Misis. Sometimes Chicago too but only when it compliments the other three.
All of them have the problem of assuming production can continue to rise. That the standard of living can keep going upward or even sustain at current levels. That's just wrong. You've got oceans of garbage in the third-world not because they're savage dindus, but on the receiving end of labor cuckoldery.
White people got smart and stopped putting their own people in coal mines and factories... out of sight out of mind. Working conditions are disgusting, the detriment to the planet is undeniable, and the worst part?
We're not even happy from it all. No Brave New World. Just a whole lot of disgruntled 20somethings going mgtow or alt right because all the stuff, all the porn, etc wasn't handed to them, they still expected you to "earn" it.
>>76528747
When you cut taxes people have more money to spend. When you tax imports, it's less expensive to build in the place you're importing to. That's all it takes.
>>76528747
"getting jobs back in america" isn't a plan.
>>76528747
My guess is that Trump is going to try and trade off cuts on income and corporate taxes for tariffs on foreign goods to incentivize more production in the US. Basically, a return to what Hamilton and Clay advocated.
>>76528929
No one takes Mises seriously. Try again tripfag.
>>76527721
>But what if the wealthiest titans of industry hoard most of the money at the top instead of reinvesting?
Warren Buffet has an enormous fortune, and he still manages to invest it.
Enormously wealthy people are also more willing to risk their money on ventures that may not work. Paul Allen is a good example of this. Economies need risky investment to remain dynamic.
>>76528856
i'm not blaming anyone specific. and that graph starts a lot further back than clinton kiddo.
increasingly putting the tax burden on the middle/lower class, while simultaneously bloating the budget = trickle down or whatever you want to call it. it's mostly just cronyism.
the fact that you would lick boots that hard is sad, but what can you expect from children who still suckle the "trickle down" from mommy and daddy's teats.
>>76527254
It would be an easier sell to call it synergistic economics, which is what it really is:
Simultaneous development across the board to provide small, slow, but compounding benefits.
The problem with our current top-down stimulus model is that it concentrates all the benefits of developing an economy into tiny places, meaning that most Americans have to migrate to where the jobs are, since they're all stuck in cities and boomtowns.
>>76529177
>increasingly putting the tax burden on the middle/lower class
That's totally false you know. The rich pay a larger share of federal taxes than they did in the 60s.
>>76526992
>>76527721
Spike in inequality has occured almost everywhere as a result of globalization and has fucking nothing to do with American tax policy despite what the left claims
Within societies inequality has increased, but globally it as dropped as the most rapid dispersion of economic (and political and military) power in the history of the world has occured.
Around 2 billion of people in the former third world (especially China, India) have been lifted out of extreme poverty since the end of the Cold War as a result of outsourcing of jobs from developed to developing countries.
It has created super rich in their countries too, but overall the vast majority of human beings in the world are better off... except for poor and middle class people with low educational attainment in high income countries.
All of this would have occured if there was no Reagan and "trickle down economics" and BTW US corporate tax is higher than all OECD countries, and everyone else has had access to most of the same international tax loopholes too.
>>76529288
Not if they don't have a good accountant. Seriously if you have a six figure net worth and you pay more than 15 to 20% in taxes every year then you are a fucking idiot.
>>76526992
If it worked America wouldn't have nearly as awful economic disparity as we do.
>>76526992
>does it work
Gee I dont know are you bitterly mad about the state of the economy, anon?
>>76528747
It's probably much more complicated than he lets on. But right now there isn't even any WILL to help the american workers. If he's the only one who is going to try then he's the only one who can do it.
And there (very probably) is a political cabal and a large team of experts behind him. He can fix complicated problems. He's not going rogue all by himself and it's going to be him and his dealmaking skills against the world or whatever. Heh, he never really claimed that but that's the image he's going for it seems.
>>76529376
*not if they have a GOOD accountant
Man I fucked that up.
>>76527483
no liberal has ever made that argument and yet every right wing loony thinks less taxes is always better FOR THEM.
the whole key to economics is their either help others or ONLY YOURSELF IF YOU ARE SO INCLINED which most people are.
>>76526992
Not when the government's all in the pocket of big businesses to let them do whatever they want but also make it hard as fuck to start up your own business.
>>76529445
why run for president if you only idea is to ask for help when you get elected
Why cant he ask for help NOW and get some real ideas in place?
>>76526992
in theory yes. but like most principles and theories these days it's too naive and doe eyed and assumes that all people will always do what is best for everyone, because homo sapiens dindu nuffin and is at it's core and in it's nature a gud boy, which is major bullshit.
>>76529376
>>76529525
Six figures isn't that high you know. Basically any non-idiot will get to 6 figures in their lifetime.
>>76526992
I highly recommend a series called THE 80's from CNN I think it is.
Watch the Reagan stuff. It's like some strange fucking unbelievable soap opera. It's hard to fucking imagine something like that happening.
Reagan was based as fuck.
>>76529547
What are you talking about? Liberals often advocate for higher taxes all the time and often say "lol we had high taxes in the past so let's just do it again."
Lower taxes are generally better for you if you can manage your money.
>>76526992
If you buy huge yacht then you have to understand that
- your wealth has trickled down
Here is how
- all of the people that were involved with finding and producing the materials that were made to build the yacht get your money
- the enormous amount of people who actually built the yacht get your money
-the dock workers and dock owners where you house your yacht get your money
- any servants like maids and butlers get your money
I am taking a dump right now so I am leaving out a lot of other people that your money trickles down to because the slimy brown logs are done plopping out and I gotta go.
But you get the point
-trump 2016!
>>76526992
The theory is that you increase profit margins for businesses which they would spend on investments. That drives up your aggregate supply curve and shifts your long run gdp up. The problem with that theory is that companies aren't reinvesting their profits and are sitting on cash/ securing their market position by buying out other companies/ paying out dividends to rich people who just piss it away.
Probably would have been better off spending the money on infrastructure.
>>76527254
Yes, the term was coined by proponents of Keynesian economics who were critical of Reagan's free market ideas. Democrats and their media keep the term alive as a bludgeon (they have many) to put capitalists on the defensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn7FEQrA_MA
>>76526992
It works great. Haven't you seen how well our wealth has trickled down out of this country in China?
>>76530086
Reaganomics is derived from Keynes. There are no mainstream purely-non Keynesian economic schools.
>>76527720
Did it work?
>>76529616
Protip: The President is not a dictator and does not micromanage every single aspect of American policy.
An effective President is essentially the same as an effective CEO. Their most important quality is knowing how to pick the right person for the job. You can't be a fucknut like Bernie Sanders and just make shit up with no economics or even basic math behind it and expect to get anything done. The President is an "idea guy" who paints their vision of the future in broad strokes, then forms their Cabinet to work out and implement the details.
>>76527720
You are correct. It's actually pretty funny how conservatives unironically believe that just giving rich people more money while starving the government of funds is a good idea. Reagan was trying to help the government by increasing revenue.
>>76530303
Sort of. What generally happens is that there's a dip in revenue for a few years, but then you catch back up as the economy grows. Reagan spent like crazy on military though hence the deficits during the 80s. But the income tax revenue did increase despite the massive cuts.
>>76528747
>So what's trumps plan other than getting jobs back in America? I completely support it but is that all it takes?
It's a multifaceted plan:
>cut taxes and regulations at home to create an atmosphere allowing entrepreneurship and investment here.
>punish corporations who leave and attempt to sell back to us instead of building here
(Carrot and stick)
>deport illegal workers and stop importing slave labor (allowing Americans to get jobs and remove the burden on our social programs)
>force corporations to bleed dry the unemployment rolls before applying for foreign work visas
>sue foreign currency manipulators and force them to stop
>open up the energy sector and reinvest some of the profits into grid upgrade (right now energy costs are what's keeping American manufacturing costs high)
>invest in our crumbling physical infrastructure.
No single one of those things will work. All of them will.
>>76526992
Of course it works. Or do you think millionaires and billionaires live the life of a monk and never spend any money, walk everywhere and grow their own food?
Fuck, people who are ultra wealthy spend money on yachts, prestige cars, private jets, and several houses, all of which take umpteen people each to build and maintain.
>>76529008
More or less. He's old school "American School of Economics" type. As soon as he started talking about his economic strategy I recognized it instantly.
>>76530297
Socialism
>>76527254
Why don't we cut taxes to zero, that will really benefit economic growth
How exactly does business taxation work, anyway? If salaries, investments, etc. are all deductible, cutting business taxes doesn't really provide much incentive to hire more or buy equipment. As such, trickle-down can at best stimulate consumer spending, and in that regard there's no real reason to preferentially cut taxes on the wealthy instead of going across the board.
>>76527834
Anybody know about how employee benefits have changed over time? I've heard some theories that more "wages" are being paid that way, which would explain stagnation in monetary terms, but I'm not sure.
unemployment was lower before trickle-down, growth was higher before trickle-down, productivity was increasing at a higher rate before trickle-down.
libertarian influenced reaganomics that began in the 1980s have destroyed the country. he also supported immigration.
neoliberal capitalism is the cause of all the degeneracy in the world today.
>>76532182
Benefits have been gutted. Back in the day benefits were a way to lure an employee to your company. Salary was rarely negotiable, but the benefits packages were. As government regulations increased, those packages went away.
>>76532018
>As such, trickle-down can at best stimulate consumer spending
When GDP growth has become fetishized, it means the same thing.
