Do retards still believe trickle down economics?
Only lolbertarians.
>>55269936
Yeah. If the government collects more money in taxes, they will trick down the money to the poorest among us.
It's actually a mix of the two of OP's pic. The rich get richer but they also spend more.
>>55269936
I'll admit trickle down doesn't work if you admit trickle up just means poor people waste money on shit they think rich people buy then continue to complain about being poor.
>>55269936
"Trickle down economics" is a term made up by liberals to discredit any tax policy that isn't much heavier on the rich. Wanting everyone taxed the same =/= giving money to the rich.
>>55270837
kek
>>55269936
write stimulus, or QE<X> on that bottle and you got yourself the other side of the coin.
>>55269936
obviously none of you have ever worked for a company that hands out bonuses
>>55269936
its not about taxes or about even money, its about control. The less money everyone else has, the less power they have. The rich just refuse to stop hoarding
>>55269936
Open your company and stop complaining.
faggot
>>55270935
No they don't, the richest just horde their wealth and do nothing with it.
>>55271047
Yea we don't have a flat tax rate
That's why the government should redistribute the wealth through centralized economic system. Everything else just doesn't work and results in dysfunctional mess where you end up with poverty, inequality, breadlines, and so on.
>>55272376
>you can horde a fiat currency
This is what Keynesians actually believe
>>55269936
These threads are ploys to slide the truth to the bottom:
>>55245895
EUROPE MUST KNOW
>>55270935
>>55272376
The Canuck is wrong, the Yank is silly. Unless you are stuffing it under the mattress, you are doing something with your money. Putting it in a bank to be lent out to other is the obvious example. However, poorer people spend faster, the velocity of money at the lower end of the social order is crazy.
>>55269936
>People argue Trickle Down Economics works because the extra money not taken from taxes will be put back/stimulate into the economy by the top % via purchasing goods (instead of saving it like they do).
>Somehow the same principle of having extra money to spend into the economy doesn't work when you raise the minimum wage in an economy where everyone agrees the dollar gets weaker as time goes on.
Conservatard logic.
>>55272519
And such systems, unfortunately, prefer to distribute the wealth among those who are in charge of distributing wealth.
>>55272376
Not really
No economical reason to do that
It's not just a Scrooge McDuck scenario
>>55269936
The premise is nonsense desu. The whole reason the rich are rich is that they're good at holding onto money, while the poor are poor because they're not. It's like trying to revitalize a river system by dumping water in the ocean instead of the tributaries.
>>55270935
How many pillows can one man buy? How many copies of games? Songs? Jeans etc.
Now picture 10,000 middle class people how many pillows can they buy?
Remember this - gum won the cold war. It's the middle class that carries the economy not a minuscule fractions of obscenely rich
>>55269936
No but I believe lowering taxes overall is better than repurposing the money of others to provide services they wouldve been able to afford easily before the government stole it and wasted huge parts of it.
>>55272637
No one advocates supply side economics because of the consumer spending to the rich. That is retarded.
The advocate it as they think money sensibly invested by business will ultimately benefit everyone, the proverbial rising tide. This is based off the assumption that spending by rich people/ business's is inherently better informed and more efficient than that by government.
>>55272376
They buy gold and valuable assets you nigger, or invest in stocks. it would be retarded to keep paper money locked away that could become worthless overnight.
>>55269936
Do retards still believe wealth is a zero sum game?
>>55272710
The counter argument is that the rich invest their money in a more efficient pillow making factory. Meaning cheaper, better quality ipillows for those 10,000 middle class.
>>55272944
But then we're back at the beginning with no middle class to buy them ipillows
>>55273004
Someone having more doesn't mean you have less.
>>55272637
Raising minimum wage is a short term solution to a long term problem. Sure I could raise the minimum wage but its going to just make the dollar less valuable until we have to raise it again, and again, and again, and again until a minimum wage is 1,000 an hour and coke costs 300.
>>55272709
That argument is nonsense desu. The whole reason the rich manage to hold onto their riches is their investments giving a yield that surpasses inflation. That means they've invested in and lent capital to productive business who need it. Your premise of them holding onto their money(many don't) already presupposes them performing a vital service to the economy.
>>55273004
The people that work in and build the pillow factory
>>55269936
No.
Remove corporatism and the federal reserve.
>>55269936
These threads are ploys to slide the truth to the bottom:
>>55245895
EUROPE MUST KNOW
>>55273080
That is not the argument we're having though. The question is it better for the wealth to be concentrated at the top or with the middle class.
>>55269936
Awww. Looks like someone got a shit degree and wants to whine about it.
Kill yourself, faggot.
>>55273100
pillows can be and often are made in places that are cheap on labour and have no labour laws. AKA not where you are from
>wealth is a pie from which mutually exclusive pieces are sliced from
Into
The
Trash
>>55273178
It is better to let wealth flow freely rather than try and control it
>>55273086
>presupposes them performing a vital service to the economy
Eh, a lot of wealth is extracted by unproductive rent seeking as opposed to providing a genuinely new product or service.
Being super pro or super against is too simplistic.
>>55273241
That is beautiful and I agree with that. However that is not what is happening. Let's keep it to reality realm
>>55273221
then maybe we should accept deflation so we can be competitive again
>>55272916
Yup
Even after 300 years
>>55269936
>being this left-green
>>55273221
Good. If it provides me with a cheaper product, they can concentrate on what they are good at, I can do what I am good at, we trade and prosper.
Comparative advantage yo,
>>55273287
rich ppl are richer than meeeee ;(
>>55273272
>rent seeking
And that's why there's laws in order to ensure that there's fair competition in the economy. They aren't perfect, and I haven't argued against them.
I'm just saying that growing richer and richer by just sitting on your ass is complete nonsense. Doesn't even matter if they invest on their own, or get someone else to invest their daddy's money. The service still gets done, and it's a damn important one.
>>55273474
>I'm just saying that growing richer and richer by just sitting on your ass is complete nonsense
Mostly. If you own the correct assets it's entirely possible to just sit on your arse and get richer, I could point to the example of the UK property market for instance.
>>55269936
But it is trickling down, on a global scale. Have you seen how rich chinks are getting?
>>55273742
I know. Our housing market is fucked as well. Can take up to 15 years to get a building permit. Thanks, socialists.
>make it impossible to build
>housing shortage
>costs skyrocket, nobody can afford it
>they vote left based on election promises of government initiatives to build new housing
brilliant
>>55270748
that's a nice strawman you got there it would be a shame if. . something were to happen to it
>>55272293
Sure. Just give me a small loan of $1,000,000 like God-Emperor Trump had.
>>55274407
Sure. Sell me your idea, and show as good a record, as Donald Trump did.
