Any Berniefag want to explain this?
"Trickle-Down" Economics is a strawman made up by critics of the economic policy during the 1980s. There is not a single piece of economic theory or policy that carries this name, and it is a gross mis-representation of supply-side economic policy.
>>80923738
Could you start by explaining what you think is contradictory.
>>80923738
Bill Clinton passing a bill making banks give home loans to people that couldn't possibly afford them caused it. Looked great everyone buying new homes. 10 years later, everyone defaults and gets kicked out of the houses. Bernie Sanders supported the bill.
>>80924130
Citation?
>>80924124
If trickle down isn't a thing, then the banking crash has nothing to do with how middle class/lower class Americans live their lives, nor does it effect their livelihoods.
The fact that you can believe that the crash hurts them, while believing that the existence of the prosperous banking market doesn't HELP them, is extremely contradictory and can't actually be explained.
>>80924130
>BUT THAT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!!!
>>80924093
People think that 'Trickle-down' means 'I'll get rich too'.
What it actually means is:
>Do I have a job?
>Yes.
>Trickle down is working exactly as it should.
>>80924309
Hang on a.min
>>80924526
It's not even a theory. It's literally a joke that got taken too far, and is used by critics of the wealthy to justify their unwarranted hatred of those who have succeeded more than the average individual.
>>80923738
Trickle-Down is a scapegoat as stated by a user earlier.
As a chief Berniefag, I will state that Banks are not despised by Bernie people. We recognize them as useful and necessary instruments of the modern economy. We need safeguards of capital that loan it out to trustworthy individuals.
By loaning it, we create interest, thus an inherent drive to return more (create more goods/services of value) then were put in.
They are a necessary risk-sharing mechanism.
However, those fucking BANKERS are scum of the earth. Fucking AIG & Lehman brothers.
Credit Default Swaps were intentionally misrated by credit rating agencies who were threatened by those motherfucking companies.
They had everyone thinking housing bonds were solid gold when they were worth jack shit.
And then they cashed out, leaving bigger companies to take a hit.
>>80924709
Those bigger companies then had to be bailed by the fucking central govt.
SO EVERYDAY TAX PAYERS TOOK THE GOD DAMN SHIT,
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS.
I DON"T WANT TO PAY FOR THESE RICH FUCKS STUPID ASS GAMBLE.
>>80924663
I want this too bro
>>80924309
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/14/clintons-legacy-the-financial-and-housin
>>80924309
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/
>>80924309
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/surprise-bernie-sanders-voted-act-crashed
>>80924367
Not really.
Critics of "trickle down economics" say that all the economic benefits go to the "1%", and this doesn't mean that the downside risk is borne by these people who benefit. I'm sure a lot of people would argue this.
It's not hard mate.
>>80924801
ALL
CAPS
>>80925275
>>80925010
>>80924930
NICE Have some tits as a thanks
>>80924130
I thought this was pretty common knowledge desu
>>80924367
The immiseration of the American working classes began long before 2008. This has been pointed out by Bernie and others for decades. Because of bailouts and other corporate welfare, Wall St wins even when it loses. And working people lose even when Wall St is in a boom cycle. There is no contradiction.
>>80924093
Would you prefer the term 'supply side economics'?
>>80924526
How does this explain Socialist countries where people have jobs? Is that "trickle down economics"?
>>80924907
>>80924309
>btfo
>>80924367
The fuck?
>>80926016
Yes, provided it's a fair representation of what supply-side economic policy is.
>>80926248
No, that's socialism.
Jobs generated by the government and paid for with taxes taken at gunpoint, is not the same as a company employing people because their is a natural demand for the products/services it provides.
>>80926731
But a barista at a coffee shop in Sweden is paid by the owner of the coffee shop through the earnings of said coffee shop, no?
I thought only the 1% "believes" in trickle down. If you actually believe that rich people getting richer benifits the middle to lower class, you're beyond retarded
>>80923738
Holy shit OP is retarded.
Middleclass people got loans which they couldn't pay. So they were saddled with enormous debts. This had harmful effects on the economy.
See faggot.. no trickle down.
>>80926554
So fundamentally, from the laymans perspective what is the difference of trickle down (less taxation to encourage reinvestment of capital, leading to job creation and higher overall quality of life for all) and Supply Side economics (more economic freedom to encourage investment of capital, leading to lower prices and higher overall quality of life for all).
I get it if you're an econ student and just triggered by shitlibs overusing the term, but realistically for the average middleman who just wants to understand why his countries economy has improved but his quality of life hasn't, what's the difference?
>>80926935
I think trickle down economics implies the rich and corporations will be less taxed or non taxed while the middle class takes on the load of the tax burden.
While supply side implies taxes are cut or wiped away across all income brackets.
>>80923738
Neocon foreign policy, high-level financial cartel gangsterism, and an asinine plan to "help" blacks by giving them loans they obviously could never pay off, all happened at the same time.
Didn't know there were so many brainwashed Berniecucks on /pol/ this is great comedy!
>>80926916
Hurr Durr tax cuts always benefit workers. It's not like their just pocketing it and letting wages stagnate while jobs are outsourced.
>>80925896
Me too. Guess not tho
>>80925625
Np
>>80924130
This this this this this.
>>80923738
Or any bernie fag want to explain the "Wall Street caused the 2008 crisis" claim? I'd love to hear how Wall Street, who never made the loans that went bad or packaged them into MBSs (that was Fannie and Freddy) and didn't even know they were bad (otherwise the banks would not have been holding onto them) are somehow responsible for the crash. It's easy to make claims like this when you don't actually understand economics/finance.
>>80924093
Trickle-down is just a nutshell description of capitalism and free enterprise.
Retards think it means cash literally trickles down from CEOs into their bank accounts.
>>80924130
This is somewhat true, I'd say this is one of three causes. The other two are the people who borrowed those mortgages even though they knew they couldn't afford them and the lenders for the same reason. Now, most people here lenders and think banks, therefore it's Wall Street's fault. This is incorrect because "Wall Street" refers to banks engaging in investment banking (or the investment banking arm of a bank engaged in more), while the lenders here were commercial bankers.
>>80924709
> Credit Default Swaps were intentionally misrated by credit rating agencies who were threatened by those motherfucking companies.
Citation needed. CDSs weren't the problem (they were for AIG because AIG issued them then needed to pay). A CDS is only insurance on a security. What you are probably referring to are CDOs. Now, the CDOs would have been fine had they not been loaded with bad loans secured by toxic assets. CDOs existed before without issue and they have existed since without issue. Finally, nobody was bribed into underestimating the risk. The market as a whole just didn't know that there were a fuckload of shitty assets coming down the pipeline. The reason nobody has been charged with fraud is because nobody really committed fraud that contributed to the collapse. I've noticed that bernouts tend to just outright ignore this fact.
>>80924367
>If trickle down isn't a thing, then the banking crash has nothing to do with how middle class/lower class Americans live their lives, nor does it effect their livelihoods.
>The fact that you can believe that the crash hurts them, while believing that the existence of the prosperous banking market doesn't HELP them, is extremely contradictory and can't actually be explained.
Capitalist here. This is a logical fallacy. Denying the antecedent.
'If banks fail, plebs fail' does not necessitate 'If banks succeed, plebs succeed'.
Or in the words of OP image, the trickling down of negatives doesn't necessitate the trickling down of positives.
Regardless, there are examples of "trickling down" of positives. >80924526 is partially right in that it equates to, 'Do I have a job? Yes.' The lower tax burden on corporations, the greater their free cash flow and the greater room for new investments and expansion. That means new products, improved products, cheaper products (e.g. reinvestment in manufacturing and reducing COGS), opening business in new territories (which regularly requires new employees), having fiscal flexibility to promote performers to new responsibilities, etc.
And before you Bernouts trash the idea of 'new products, improved products, [and] cheaper products]' by disparaging the boogey man of 'consumerism', who do you think makes that paper you wipe your ass with? Who produces the soap you *should* be using? Or your toothpaste, which prevents cavities and reduces healthcare costs? Who makes mother's lives easier with disposable diapers, baby scales to monitor health of growth, and baby formula before they can move onto solid food? Who produces and improves the computers and monitors and GPUs you're using right now and adore so much? Who brought the internet and GPS to mass-market consumers like you, instead of preserving their use for military purposes only?
