I have seen this floating around for a while now and I want to have an honest discussion on it.
Does Trickle down economics work?
If not why?
If so why?
Yes we can sit and circle jerk all day but I want to hear your opinion on it /pol/, is it just a scheme for making the rich richer or is there actual merit behind it.
It is the only moral way to encourage large scale growth of jobs.
wish some would trickle down into my wallet ahahaha x
>>73505018
Curious, could you explain further?
I apologize as I am a bit of a layman when it comes to these things and I am genuinely interested in it.
>>73504870
It works for the people pol is obedient to, the top 1%.
>>73504870
see for yourself
It's a bit of a scam and unfair but not complete BS. I imagine a lot of rich people don't hoard their money, and it's not inconceivable that would-be tax revenue that's spent/invested ends up being part of another person's paycheck.
>>73505316
Ok so explain your stance to me in laymans terms.
This is not shitposting, I would love to hear honest commentary on it and I would love to understand why it is such a divisive idea.
>>73504870
>>73505161
Trickle down economics is simply encouraging large companies to expand in their own self interest to make more money, giving them tax breaks so they have more money to spend. This expansion is what creates jobs.
It is not perfect, but all other proposals involve abusing taxpayer money, more government control, and manipulating markets, so it is the best for jobs.
>>73505395
It doesn't trickle.
The Panama Papers proved that. Pic related.
Here's a great explanation by the man Gordon Gekko was based on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wAa9DqHZtM
>>73505470
Ok, I see the logic in what you are saying, but what about what >>73505491 is saying.
Does trickle down economics promote people to hoard finances offshore and if so what should be done about it?
>>73504870
Is Bernie the only Jew not to understand economics? Someone better check his Hebrew credentials because I think he's a fraud.
>>73505845
While I applaud the race baiting comment I am genuinely interested in this topic.
From the way you made the comment you sound as if you are for it, could you explain why?
>>73504870
Trickle down economics relies on the rich actually being honest and having interest in the people, which many of them do not. If you give the job creators more money with no sort of regulation of where it goes, they'll just see it as a bigger paycheck and nothing more.
>>73505491
>>73505419
>>73505352
How much do you earn per shill post on /pol/?
>>73506073
93 gorillion
>>73505656
Trickle down economics is not income redistribution, it is simply encouraging growth through tax breaks, which, if there is a lot of growth, happens to be very good for people at the bottom. If rich people would rather keep their money then use it to expand their business they are welcome to, however tax havens are not a fault of trickle down economics, they are a fault of law in general. The higher taxes are, the more people will generally hide away.
>>73506050
OK so it is a theory that relies on people not being greedy from what you are saying.
Is there a way to incentivize people to not hoard the money and get them to actually spend it on job creation?
>>73504870
>is it just a scheme for making the rich richer or is there actual merit behind it.
people considered it a scam during the Reagan years, it was just some bullshit about your check is in the mail
>>73506118
No, seriously, how much do you earn? I simply don't believe people spread so much disinfo on such a a regular and consistent basis.
>>73504870
>Does it work?
In what way? It seems to work for the country at large, and for corporations, investors, and other "wealthy" parties. It /can/ create jobs, but if America is any example, it mostly creates low-paying jobs.
>Why?
Maximizing profits is the sole goal of corporations, but it does not incentivize the creation of jobs, and even when jobs are created, there is no drive to provide better wages.
It's only reasonable to expect corporations and their leaders / investors to focus on their own profits. It's the point, after all.
But there are too many ways to increase profits that do not require the creation of jobs, or the increase in pay.
Normally I think that an economic or political system just needs to be hybridized with others to get something more stable, but with trickle-down, it feels like it's conceptually "all or nothing".
as a red-pilled trump supporter, i recognize the trickle down jew as wool pulled over the sheeps eye
>>73506327
>this image
OH BOY here we go.
Question: What does the wine represent, and where does it come from?
>>73506271
I spread facts, not disinfo. That's why you haven't been able to prove me wrong once. You can't argue facts so you just try to come up with insane conspiracy theories.
I have hundreds more like this.
Go ahead. Reply again.
Wife and I are in the top 3%. It works for us.
>>73506382
>What does the wine represent, and where does it come from?
it represents money, money that is supposed to trickle down...
>>73504870
>honest discussion
>Asks about "trickled down economics" which is a made up, emotionally manipulative leftist strawman.
And that's when I noticed the flag.
>>73504870
Calling it "trickle down" economics instead of supply side economics is a good sign that you're a retard. Not that supply side economics is flawless, but there's no point in explaining it to someone who can't even identify it properly. In a sense yes Bernie is right that it does lead to income inequality, but unless you're a Marxist it shouldn't be that much of an issue for you.
>>73506503
No it doesn't try again.
>>73506334
What would you suggest in place instead?
Also could you further expand on the "all or nothing" in your statement?
>>73504870
If the increased profits resulted in job creation it would work but just as often it is reinvested into things like property or stocks which just inflates the price without achieving any extra demand.
In Ireland we had the wonderful situation of various insurance companies using their money to go into battle against each other, which achieved nothing except them all growing broke and now they need to be bailed out with public money since various insurances are mandatory.
Decreasing income tax on workers actually would result in more demands for goods and services but workers are one of the least mobile things in an economy. Reducing tax on things that cant runaway would be silly wouldn't it?
The rich and the jobs just fuck off if you tax them.
>>73504870
>sanders supporter talking about economics is the equivalent of leaning quantum mechanics from a 3 year old with Downs syndrome
>>73504870
It doesn't work if the borders are being removed like they are now as the rich aren't usually patriotic they will offshore the jobs. So it does create jobs but ones overseas
If we close the borders economically again it would work
>>73506516
Surprisingly enough this is not shitposting, I am genuinely interested and I want to understand it.
I see all this divisiveness on it and I want to understand why.
>>73506428
Facts can be disinfo, dear leaf poster.
I know, you don't believe that any recession occurred during the early 00s, and blame the poor NASDAQ performance on """"bush keeping us safe from 9/11".
>>73504870
"Trickle down economics" is a straw man from the left. No one on the right actually advocates for it, they don't call a plan involving tax cuts "trickle down economics." The term came from anti-Reagan Democrats, not from conservative economists.
>>73505470
What you're decribing is indirect market manipulation. There's nothing immoral about market manipulation, we should be doing what works best.
>>73506662
So what is a better idea would be to lower the tax on the working people and encourage them to spend that tax break on goods and services instead?
>>73506569
>supply side economics
Even that isn't really a thing. "Supply side" simply means you believe that Say's Law is correct, it says literally NOTHING about any other economic theories you hold or policy prescriptions. You could believe in Say's Law and be a hardcore Soviet-style communist just as much as you could be some laissez-faire libertarian type.
>>73506724
That's not what I said. What I said was most of the economic damage that occurred in 2001 was because Bush kept us safe on 9/11. I say the keeping us safe part to mock conservatives.
Why don't you answer this. The Clinton economy created over 23 million private sector jobs over 8 years. The best record in American history. Conservatives have convinced themselves this was all due to MUH DOT COM. So tell me this. How many of those 23 million+ jobs were lost when MUH DOT COM crashed?
>>73504870
Ever get paid by a guy who is poorer than yourself?
Didnt think so.
>>73504870
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf
read for yourself
>>73504870
>>73505419
And Ronald Reagan wasn't president in 1980. You can't blame reaganomics.
What actually happened is that Frederick Herzberg dif a study and wrote an article that sold a million copies. It told businesses that once you pay people enough, raises dont make them happier or more productive.
>>73506947
>implying revenue didn't increase during Bush's term and that spending didn't go up even higher
Oh leaf, you're so funny
>>73507004
Reagan cut the top marginal taxes on the rich by 2/3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5CCRI1vdwE
>>73505656
There's very little wrong with tax havens in the first place. You're not suppose to give the gov all of your money. If you're not using your money, it makes sense to keep it somewhere that's safe from taxes.
>>73506927
Starting to read it now, thank you for the link, you are the first person to actually do it and I appreciate that.
People forget the old axiom of "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
>>73507078
Revenue decreased massively under Bush's term. What are you some kind of right wing retard?
>>73505352
Bush and the GOP Congress turned a $230 BILLION Clinton surplus into massive deficits.
Republicans are a tax cut and spend party.
Bernie sounds as retarded as this lady with Uncle Milton!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLwANVtnkA
>>73506256
The rich are rich because they use their money to make more money. They will spend it as long as there are profitable opportunities to do so. The left wing has historically been massive retards when it comes to money. It's wise to be skeptical of anything they say about economics.
>>73506910
This is a pretty concise way of putting it.
It worked great for China. Our wealth trickled right down into their economy.
>>73506876
>What I said was most of the economic damage that occurred in 2001 was because Bush kept us safe on 9/11.
And that's a flat out lie, you ignorant syrupnigger. The market was already in a fucking recession during 9/11. Again again again, look at this fucking picture. Green square is the market crash result of the .Com bubble. The red is 9/11.
I'm not arguing against the jobs created during Clinton. Not at all. I don't fucking care who did it. I'm just calling you out on your disinfo; because you're a pathetic liar.
>>73507084
OK so this may appear to be a bit of a question that seems a little slow.
Why do you need to put money that is already taxed into offshore tax havens, can the fiscal profits of a business from a previous year be taxed again?
>>73506910
Have actually. Didn't find out til later but the business was doing poorly for awhile in the 08 crash and he was actually giving up his own pay and sold his house so he didn't have to lay anyone off or lower their wages
>>73504870
Yeah it works for pissing off libshits.
>>73507310
>>73506876
Hang on, the picture fails to upload.
No. Rich just hoard the money instead of investing it.
>>73506858
Supply side economics implies a belief in the Laffer curve though
>>73507240
You know... I'm not one to get conspiratorial but I always thought she was a plant.
https://youtu.be/WTLwANVtnkA?t=44
She says exactly what Milton wants her to.
Anyways Milton was so completely full of shit.
You guys aren't actually going to defend this are you?
"They invest it in factories"
I thought all you right wing retards complain that the factories have been shut down.
So admit Milton was wrong.
They don't invest it. They hoard it. Pic related.
HOLY SHIT POL BTFO!
>>73504870
>>73507332
That's actually interesting, but I think the idea is that generally it doesn't happen: most people's bosses aren't veritable saints who would rather become destitute than harm their employees.
>>73504870
it won't work if you don't let the big guys fail once in a while
>>73507310
>>73507387
I told you already, this picture shows exactly what I'm saying. That 9/11 caused tremendous economic damage. You didn't know that?
Stop avoiding the question.
Why don't you answer this. The Clinton economy created over 23 million private sector jobs over 8 years. The best record in American history. Conservatives have convinced themselves this was all due to MUH DOT COM. So tell me this. How many of those 23 million+ jobs were lost when MUH DOT COM crashed?
>>73507340
>>73507310
>>73507387
Can you relax. I'm not always going to respond within 2 seconds. I'm posting in other places as well.
Just relax Olaf. Breathe.
Didn't you give me this picture btw?
You blew yourself out last time.
>>73507328
>can the fiscal profits of a business from a previous year be taxed again?
Yes actually. However most of the money in tax havens is money earned oversea that businesses don't want to send back to the US in order to avoid taxes.
>>73507332
So before he paid you, he was richer than you.
>>73507480
They invested in factories in third world nations fuckhead.
>>73507480
I have a legitimate question.
Because of one side consistently cutting taxes and then the other side rising taxes when they get into power do you think this has conditioned business owners to deliberately use tax havens to avoid the whole entire tax scenario?
>>73504870
Get ready for a shit post of the century. Basic income is the only way to go. We're stacking on trillion after trillion of debt, we might as well skip the middle man and give the money straight to the end point. Why go through the rich people so they can decide.
>>73507690
So Milton was the fuckhead.
>>73507480
>"They invest it in factories"
They do. You are so inconceivably stupid, I just don't have words for it.
>>73507568
> That 9/11 caused tremendous economic damage. You didn't know that?
Look at >>73507387. It shows nothing of the like. It shows that the market DEFINITELY already in a recession during 9/11, and 9/11 had a MARGINAL effect on the slope of market indices.
YOU STOP avoiding the question.
>The Clinton economy created over 23 million private sector jobs over 8 years. The best record in American history. Conservatives have convinced themselves this was all due to MUH DOT COM. So tell me this. How many of those 23 million+ jobs were lost when MUH DOT COM crashed?
Around 2 million, if you want to believe the department of labor. I'm not fucking arguing this you dumbfuck. What is your point with this question?
>>73506606
>What would you suggest in place instead?
Actual taxation.
Somehow incentivizing the creation of jobs and increases in pay.
Not that it matters at all unless you can get tax enforcement under control.
What some of you do not understand is that people with plenty of money now use the government to protect their wealth via Moral Hazards and Regulations. In a true free market people like George Soros would have to invest his capital in real productive business's to get a return instead of hedge funds guaranteed by the government. Its the government that is making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class non existent. Why do you think all the people at the top are so against free market Politicians like Ron Paul and Trump? And love Politicians like Hillary and Obama, its because people like Hillary give them advantages they could never get in a free market.
>>73504870
listen to the soothing economics man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EoetIL-MiM
>>73507672
Then the question is this, if you stopped taxing profits that have already been made then would this encourage companies to keep money in country rather than offshore?
(Example, if you earned $400,000 after tax in 2014 then that $400,000 does not need to be declared in 2015)
Also what could you do to encourage businesses to bring that money that they are holding offshore back into the country?
>>73507744
Not really because the corporate tax hasn't changed since I think 1986.
Corporations have only gotten more and more loopholes since then.
The up and down has mostly been with the top marginal tax rate. They've been fairly minor changes. Nothing extreme.
As that many disappears into offshore havens, not only does the economy get weaker, the velocity of money slows down, but the worst part is the lower and middle class
That's why raising wages is the best way to stimulate the economy imo. Buffett prefers expanding the Earned Income Tax credit. I'd recommend doing both.
>>73504870
>Does Trickle down economics work?
Does putting all your heaters during winter into one room and letting the heat trickle down from room to room warm up every room?
>>73504870
Trickle down economics is what idiots who know nothing about economics call "supply side economics"
>>73505352
The government making less money doesn't mean that money isn't "trickling down". The money isn't "trickling down" but it's not because the hurr durr republicans. Republicans are shit but so are democrats and they're both responsible for the shit thats happened. But ideally if all other factors are held constant then the money will be trickling down.
>>73504870
It does not work. It refuses to realize that people do profit without work and are actually hurting production. Tax cuts and tax increases won't do crap. The problem is the infinitely growing capital of loan capital There is too much money in the economy. There is more loan capital than production capital. Sharing the wealth is a delusion. lets say cards can get use a slice of bread. There are 52 cards. I own 32the rest own 1. We can share the wealth all we want but it doesn't change the fact that there is one slice of bread and that the price for it is high. 21 people can't eat one slice of bread. Going back to a gold standard is bad because it will be too deflated. Productive capital is finite but loan capital is infinite. Real wealth comes from production not currency. The wealth doesn't trickle down because money isn't wealth and everyone is expecting more money. Money is a medium of exchange for goods. We have more vastly money than goods and work our butts off for money. Working without being paid is slavery. Working for money that can't get you goods is also slavery.
>>73507890
Well put... It's rare to see someone who really understands the game. I wouldn't say trump is a free marketer though, he likes the rigged game as well and he plays it like a pro. But him understanding\using it to his advantage and wanting to change it are two different possible ideals. We can only hope.
>>73505352
> as a percentage of GDP.
Bolshevik swine. The entire premise of what your ilk mischaracterizes as "trickle down economics" is about the government taking more in absolute terms because it is taking a smaller slice of a larger pie that has been able to grow because the agents of its growth are not being robbed blind and so will invest their resources.
>>73504870
Trickle Down Economics is a buzzword that retards use when they attempt to describe a small facet of supply side economics and in no way actually represents supply side economics in anyway. Its like a grossly over used strawman and its often proof that people don't understand what it means let alone what Supply Side Economics is as a whole.
>>73505419
This graph is dishonest. Show the difference in productivity increase in STEM vs all other industries and you will see that STEM is the sole reason why productivity is increasing and all other fields remain fucking flat.
>>73507810
Don't argue with canacucks. They want to be the new Australia.
>>73508074
Useless analogy, I could just as easily say "does putting all your bathwater above one showerhead and letting the water trickle down onto you get you clean?" but it would be no more profound.
>>73508031
>>73507744
>Not really because the corporate tax hasn't changed since I think 1986.
Correction. 1993. Clinton raised it. The economy boomed. Also, I should have said corporate tax RATE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993
Previously the top individual tax rate of 31% applied to all income over $51,900. The Act created a new bracket of 36% for income above $115,000, and 39.6% for income above $250,000.[2]
Previously, corporate income above $335,000 was taxed at 34%. The Act created new brackets of 35% for income from $10 million to $15 million, 38% for income from $15 million to $18.33 million, and 35% for income above $18.33 million.[3]
The 2.9% Medicare tax previously was capped to only apply to the first $135,000 of income. This cap was removed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
The portion of Social Security benefits subject to income taxes was raised from 50% to 85%.[4]
The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
The AMT tax rate was increased from 24% to tiered rates of 26% and 28%.[5]
Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments.
>>73504870
Trickle down cannot work when jobs are exported.
>>73506256
If they hoard the money in their own country they have to horde it in the banks and the banks lend out more money. It's like you know literally nothing about economics.
>>73508292
Actually it still works, but only for the good of it all if you're a globalist.
>>73504870
Interestingly, George HW Bush, when he was running against Reagan, called it VOODOO economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hnM6xNjeU
Also, here's what Reagan's own budget director had to say about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oToYSJQ9tpw
>>73505470
This suggests that trickle down doesn't work as well when jobs are exported as when jobs are kept in the US. Is that right? Why would we want to give corporations tax breaks so that jobs can trickle down in Bangladesh?
>>73505419
Sure, there's a reason for pay growth to track productivity when that productivity is attributable to the contribution of the employees, as with the growth in human capital. When the productivity growth is attributable to the capital investment of an equity holder, there is no basis for the fruits of that investment to go to anyone else.
>>73504870
i want bernie sanders to die
>>73508338
So we cut tax revenues in the US that could be used for things needed in the US, in order to trickle down jobs in foreign countries? How do you get Americans to vote for that?
>>73506271
He earns his shilling fee much more than you do, Ahmed
>>73507983
>Then the question is this, if you stopped taxing profits that have already been made then would this encourage companies to keep money in country rather than offshore?
Yes, but that would just mean more offshore businesses. The money will go to wherever businesses thinks they can get the most profit. Right now, that is the third world.
>>73508474
Well the americans don't vote for it, the congress as a whole does and they don't have to tell you they're doing it.
>>73508310
I have a limited understanding of economics, the reason why I ask these questions is to get a clearer answer, if you do not ask questions then how will you ever find the answer?
Also I know, usually it is Australians shitposting all the time and it is weird when one actually wants to learn and understand something, but how will we ever defeat the emu's if we don't start asking the hard and difficult questions?
>>73508031
>>73507744
Shit I forgot to finish the sentence.
>As that many disappears into offshore havens, not only does the economy get weaker, the velocity of money slows down, but the worst part is the lower and middle class
have to make up the revenues.
>>73506876
>I'm retarded and don't know what economic lag is
That how you sound
>>73504870
Will only perfectly work in a country that prides itself more as one entity (Either by Race or some grand cultural ideology) rather than as a large land mass of diverse citizens who collectively decide to work together.
Businesses make profits. Rich keeps profits. Some rich feel empathy for fellow man, open charities and programs. Others do not, they keep their money.
Government spending and taxes is not a solution to solving the rich that do not give. They are only tools that "might" help recessionary or Inflationary gaps in an economy. Rich will always find a way to avoid taxes.
In the end it all comes down to whether a culture of people can and are willing to adopt "Trickle down Economics" fully into their society. Bernie doesn't understand that the Inconsistent trickling down isn't a cause of this "Rich Class owns all and are corrupt" meme but rather it is the culture of Americans (Old generation or new) that take what they earn and don't feel obligated in giving out. Bernie is lacking in understanding true values of his countr . but meh what do I know, I'm a burning leaf
>>73504870
>Americans vote to cut taxes on corporations.
>Corporations use the extra revenue to invest in new factories overseas.
>Wealth trickles down in foreign countries.
>Americans lose tax revenues and their jobs.
Doesn't sound like a winning platform. For trickle down to work, you first have to plug the hole of outsourcing.
>>73505419
Productivity of an individual business doesn't mean anything if they are competing with other businesses that are just as productive, in terms of their profit margins
>>73506662
Exactly. True 'supply side' economics would invest in industries which are innovative and economy boosting, like er renewables. Not dumb things like real estate speculation and general share investing (often offshore). Small business is a much better creator of jobs than big business. Big business can use economies of scale and virtual monopolies to hoard capital without doing anything really productive, like employing people.
/pol sucks the penis of the corporate happy trader
>>73508474
The people that believes in a world that works together will vote for you.
>>73508678
Are you denying there wasn't immediate TREMENDOUS economic damage when Bush kept us safe on 9/11?
No
Trading works
Money doesn't go anywhere for no reason.
Money needs a motive. Individuals can't just expect to get floated. Elect bloated corporate fundamentally socialist parties on either side and expect nonsense like this to preside.
Nobody understand how money works or what it is. ATLAS SHRUGGED NIGGERS. It's a fiction, let's not abandon the world. The essays are tedious but if you get into them they're extremely interesting. Fuck everybody running for president in 2016.
>>73504870
Because people think "trickle down" means tax cuts. That's only the half of it.
The Democrats use a system called Demand side economics, or Keynseian economics. Basically, the government spends more in bad times and less in good times. More technically, demand drives the economy and demand is low in bad times, so the government steps in. This was used during the Great Depression and it didn't work. One study showed that FDR prolonged the depression by 7 years
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
Demand Side Economics have never really worked. Supply side has been around for a while. its basically that the government gets out of the way Basically, supply creates its own demand so governments should ensure that investors and entrepreneurs can do that unhindered. It works, but struggles when half-assed (Bush tax cuts)
>>73506724
"facts can be disinfo"
Are you truly this stupid tundra for brains?
>>73508678
>Are you denying there WAS immediate TREMENDOUS economic damage when Bush kept us safe on 9/11?
>>73508850
Got my double negatives all screwy.
>system proposed about 3 decades ago
>income inequality grows
Pretty obvious.
After looking at trickle down economics in play during the Reagan and Bush years compared to the Clinon and Obama years and comparing the amount of jobs created.
It's solid proof that trickle down economics is an abject failure since companies are more likely to just pocket the money and hide it off shore than reinvest in their company. Another good example is the telecom companies given massive tax breaks to upgrade their networks and infrastructure and they just pocketed that and did some token upgrades.
>>73506830
Yes, but in my view there should be more incentives for small business to employ people. And rents should be curtailed, they are a massive impost on the economy and small businesses
>>73507232
>Clinton surplus
Interesting. Who was on control of Congress during this period? You know, the legislative body? The guys who actually pass a budget and control spending?
>>73507387
You are full of faeces snownigger, too busy prepping the bull are we?
>>73508281
No economy has ever boomed from expanding government and having them steal more wealth out of the economy. Are you people blind? I can't believe the amount of Economic illiterates on here. Taxes are a waste, do you ever notice that anything the government gets involved in the Prices skyrocket, technology is stagnant, and the Product or Service is garbage? Why? It's because there is no incentive for them to do a good job. The only incentive is to expand the problem. Look at some of the things we still get from the free market like cell phones, tv's and computers. The technology keeps on getting greater and greater, and the price's keep on getting lower and lower. Its all due to competition. We need this sort of competition that can only be done in a free market for everything except for the protection of our lives, liberty, and properties.
>>73504870
No economic system actually works. The economics of a nation is a by product of that nation's culture. It's the culture which works (or doesn't).
>>73505352
% of gdp
Also where is the 2003 tax cuts?
>>73508933
Everyone has gotten richer though.
>>73508937
>After looking at trickle down economics in play during the Reagan and Bush years compared to the Clinon and Obama years and comparing the amount of jobs created.
Trickle down economics was in play through all 4 presidencies you dumbfuck.
>>73506662
>If the increased profits resulted in job creation it would work but just as often it is reinvested into things like property or stocks which just inflates the price without achieving any extra demand.
Only if you have retarded laws like Britain's Green Belt and compulsory nigger housing construction to get permission to build anything useful (as is often the case in the US), perhaps. In a market without that drivel, investment in housing that inflates prices drives more construction, which creates jobs.
>>73506724
>facts can be disinfo
Wut.
>>73504870
I have a new word, emotionomics.
its like economics except its not,it like doesn't involve anything remotely rational
could call it jewnomics
>>73509066
>Everyone has gotten richer though
Everybody has gotten richer in Sweden too faggot.
>>73504870
trickle down economics is a pejorative term leftists used for Reagan's policies in the 80s (which actually worked). any leftist pedaling the "trickle down" meme nowadays is a stupid fucking asshat faggot who should be shot for making this Republic a little less great.
>>73504870
I think the current state of affairs speaks for itself. Trickle down was a disaster
>>73507810
>>73508231
Alright Hansel, I don't why you're going all Berserker with your panties in a twist but since you want to have a go, I'll oblige.
>I know, you don't believe that any recession occurred during the early 00s, and blame the poor NASDAQ performance on """"bush keeping us safe from 9/11".
First of all, you did realize that I was mocking conservatives with this statement right? Bush didn't actually keep us safe on 9/11. You can't trust Republicans with national security.
>"""bush keeping us safe from 9/11".
on. not from
2nd. Aussiebro made a good point here.
>>73508877
"facts can be disinfo"
Are you truly this stupid tundra for brains?
Kek.
>. I'm just calling you out on your disinfo; because you're a pathetic liar.
I thought you said facts are disinfo. So you're calling out my facts and then calling me a liar?
You're not even making any sense Erik.
Is that enough BTFO or do you want more?
>"They invest it in factories"
They do. You are so inconceivably stupid, I just don't have words for it.
How many tens of thousands of American factories have closed since Reaganomics?
You're going to sit there and tell me they invest in factories? They fucking shut them down.
You're acting as dumb as this idiot.
>>73507690
Have you had enough yet?
Trickle down economics doesnt work in a globalist economy. If the large companies are creating jobs offshore yet gettings tons of revenue from American soil, then it doesn't "trickle down" to our economy specifically.
Also it's been proven by the panama papers that the rich do indeed "hoard" their money. Whether you want to call that morally right or wrong is another story; they're avoiding responsibility in the economy's health by avoiding taxes. You can't trust the rich to give back unto the people, and incentivizing them with lower taxes wont help because theyre getting a big fat 0% tax as it is.
In my mind you have to make it harder for the hoarders.
>>73509037
Simplistic garbage. Yes government is inefficient but it doesn't need to be. If it was truly accountable, then it could work far better. The only reason technology is becoming cheaper is because of virtual slavery in Asia. Certain sectors privatized still have shit service.
Most large businesses operate in virtual monopolies or duopolies, so competition is either nonexistent or very limited.
You seem very brainwashed, friendo
>>73508877
Fact The Number of pirate goes down as global temperature rises.
This is the game he's playing. For example in >>73505352, there was a tax-cut in 2001, so that implies a tax cut hurts the market.
>>73509021
Isn't it bedtime in straya yet?
>>73504870
>Does Trickle down economics work?
No. For the same reason communism doesn't work.
Hint:
|
>
|
3
|
|
>>73509321
Comcast is one example of shit service in the US from a private company. They are by far the worst operation out there and they continuously post record profits. They are almost certainly a monopoly though... and very rarely have any competition in the same type of tech. I'm sure they're subsidized by the tax payer somehow but i don't have proof of that off hand.
>>73509288
Well, obviously. But they are also large political donors :)
This makes it tricky for our 'uncorruptible' politicians. I don't hear even daddy Trump broaching this subject, he the one 'free from lobbyist influence'. No politician will touch Google, coz they have everyone's internet history
>>73509288
>In my mind you have to make it harder for the hoarders.
Probably not /only/ that, but it seems like it has to be the first step.
>>73509460
>>73508877
Are you seriously trying to imply there's no correlation between tax cuts and a drop in govt revenues?
>so that implies a tax cut hurts the market.
The charts are showing the correlation between tax cuts and budget deficits. Not the stock markets.
Did you even look at the charts?
>>73505352
>>73506947
Give it a rest Ragnar. You're a right wing retard like the rest of them.
>>73509256
>that entire post
Geez, formatting isn't your strong side, is it?
>How many tens of thousands of American factories have closed since Reaganomics?
>You're going to sit there and tell me they invest in factories? They fucking shut them down.
And opened new ones around the world, where labour is cheap, making cheap products. This increases the American people's purchasing power. What is your point?
>>73509460
Whatever you might call your 'brain' seems sleepy. Maybe even comatose
I don't mean to be rude, but do have any learning difficulties?
>>73509539
Probably pay little or no tax, as most large companies do. Probably based in the Caymans
>>73508598
Okay sorry I thought you were a stupid Aussie. Trickle down or supply side economics are very limited ways of understanding economics as a whole and its important to remember the concept of "ceterus paribus" each theory only applies when all other factors are held constant.
Now when people say "trickle down economics" IDK WTF they mean, the rich are paying for your paycheck so the money is trickling down. Now they use this idea to assert that tax cuts don't create jobs. This is only true in a complex political environment when factors not held at constant are throwing a wrench in the system. In the American economy many of our jobs have been exported and the stagflation (when the inflation increases but people aren't paid more to compensate) is in full swing. So in order for the idea of cutting taxes to make more jobs to work, upward social mobility needs to increase, regulations need to be cut, preferential corporate treatment needs to be reduced and the globalized economy needs to either be localized or we need to remove the minimum wage to become competitive.
Long story short: it's a hot mess, study economics in isolation on each idea before applying them to the real world.
I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this thread, it has given me a lot to think on and I appreciate your contribution to it.
Cheers and I might ask another question tomorrow night, it is good to see different sides on a subject.
>>73504870
What do we mean by works? Generally, the logic is
>By reducing tax burden, people will invest more into the economy which will create revenue for them, and jobs for others
And this logic works. The problem is, that it doesn't necessarily have the limited effects people demand from it.
For instance, a tax cut might increase investing, but not necessarily in the United States. The other issue is that by reducing tax income, without balancing the budget for the new income, you create deficits.
With the other point above, about causing the growth of foreign industry, this goes hand in hand. The idea is that the more employment and movement in an economy, the more taxable income there will be, and therefore things balance.
I suppose the bigger questions are why do people deserve the money of the rich or what better incentive is there besides personal incentive?
Is there any incentive for "the rich" to invest their money back in society when they already have, and continue to make, more than is even rationally spendable?
Tax Havens seems like they'll always be more attractive than reinvestment, regardless of tax rates, given the staggeringly massive amount of money already on-hand.
>>73509648
A rise in market values can actually hurt an economy if it is associated with an asset bubble. Generally speaking, raising revenue improves the budget bottom line, although there is obviously a sweet spot between excess and insufficient revenue. Too much liquidity inevitably causes asset appreciation, an asset bubble, and most economically challenged people like the idea of investing in things like real estate, a very non-productive investment.
I'm a bit conservative myself, but I wouldn't coalign with Sveyn the Fatheaded
>>73509683
What's your strong side, may I ask?
>>73509683
>And opened new ones around the world, where labour is cheap, making cheap products. This increases the American people's purchasing power. What is your point?
I really hope the other right wing retards B you the TFO for this.
If they don't, that's just fucking pathetic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvVAPsn3Fpk
>>73509944
Yes, and it's really quite simple. People do things to occupy the time they exist in.
After a point, it's not so much as about acquiring wealth, as it is about justifying existence. Besides, tax havens don't protect against inflation.
>>73509648
>Are you seriously trying to imply there's no correlation between tax cuts and a drop in govt revenues?
Here, let me help you out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Have you ever considered why tax-cuts coincide with depressions? Here's some help for the question: Quantitative Easing (QE) is effectively a tax-cut for the richest.
>>73509743
><shitposts loudly>
>>73510009
Not being a simpleton.
>>73510046
Where's the argument?
>>73506382
where does it go?
>>73507837
We got the actual taxation part down very well.
One of the highest tax rates int he world and awesome efficency too as the tax collector gets around 98% of the tax revenue to be actually paid.
Yet our economy is crashing faster and faster, and does even worse each time we add a tax.
Taxes are a mandatory evil but let's not believe they create incentives to earn more, that's simply wrong and you can look at any socialist countries to realize that.
People are entitled to earn the products of their efforts. Denying them that is criminal and will lead to an economic break down on the long term.
>>73509968
>I'm a bit conservative myself, but I wouldn't coalign with Sveyn the Fatheaded
Apologies. The right wing retard comment was not directed at you. Just Magnus the Mindless.
>>73510060
>Yes, and it's really quite simple. People do things to occupy the time they exist in.
But when they can do so with only a tiny fraction of their wealth, while still having that wealth increase, why should they apply the rest of their wealth? Why shouldn't it sit somewhere in a sea of gold coins?
supply side or "trickle down" economics is not economics. it was created and proposed by politicians not economists
>>73510248
It doesn't go anywhere. Value is never destroyed, merely lost or found.
>>73504870
I think we need to define the end goal first before we discuss whether if something "works".
What do you mean by working? Making everyone live in prosperity regardless of their work ethnic and contribution to society?
>>73509321
When you have the legal monopoly on legal theft and violence like the government, that power no matter who is in charge will always be sold to the top. Always has, always will. History is on my side with this. The power of legal theft and force also draws the worst of the worst to this power as well. Again History is on my side with this.
You're basically telling me that stagnant government run crony monopolies if held accountable, can provide a better product than the vast competition that exists in a free market. Good luck with that.
You're knowledge of Economics is on par with Webster knowing how to dunk a basketball. Remember Monopolies can only exist with Government Intervention via Rules and Regulations. There has only been two monopolies that have ever existed without government intervention in the market. Everything else was Cronyism at its finest.
>>73509754
Sorry, your ideas are a bit confused. How does upward social mobility create jobs? It might increase wealth, if you mean socioeconomic mobility. Being able to hobnob with the Rockefellers has not much to do with economic productivity afaic see.What regulations? Some regulations are an albatross on an economy, in Australia its things like occupational health and safety etc. which create enormous amounts of red tape. To perform basic transactions in business sometimes one needs a legal degree. But some regulation, e.g. in the financial sector, has proven beneficial in weeding out the sharks. The US has the most deregulated financial sector in the world, and it was there were the rot started wrt the GFC.
The idea that you will improve the economy by introducing 3rd world wages is frankly ludicrous, and shows that you are woefully out of your depth. 'Localizing economies' is a nice idea, but totally unrealistic, unless you advocate the small beer of tariffs (which are now virtually illegal under international and bi- or multi- lateral trade agreements). I hope you aren't going to be an economist be profession; I fear you might be.
And you haven't alluded at all to monopolistic practises.
>>73510319
If you mean tax haven bank accounts, then their wealth will decrease. Bank accounts do not keep up with the rate of inflation.
If you mean mutual funds, or low risk stocks, then that money does exist in the economy; it is being used to generate more wealth. Wealth is not something akin to mushrooms that send out spores; it has to be actively managed if even not by the owner of the wealth.
>>73509810
Investing in existing real estate stock, or banking shares, or even mining shares, has no necessary jobs benefit whatsoever Cleetus. Even if investing in productive sectors of the economy, the only reason why investment would stimulate job growth is if there was a liquidity/capital shortfall in some business that needed to expand. If there was a tax break for this specific thing, I'd be all for it.
>>73507551
I live in a smaller city here. People tend to help eachother out on times of need rather than screw them over like in large cities where people seem almost treated like cattle sometimes
>>73506118
Get out, you worthless sack. You afraid to make your own threads now?
>>73510244
>Projects sadly
>Not being a simpleton
MUAHAHAHAHA
>>73510749
Here's your reply.
>>73504870
It works. With Bernie as president companies would move out and you would have neither job or welfare. Check how Depardieu became Russian and what was happening moment before in France
>>73510658
I think that's because it's easier to replace workers in large cities with someone else.
>>73506503
Then why is the wine being put into the wine glass? That isn't representative of it at all.
>>73510729
Just for that
>>>73510913
>>73509648
Where did you go? Are you consulting your supervisor at Obama Shilling Inc. to figure out how to avoid looking like a dumbshit, as you have no reasonable argument against my last post?
>>73510572
>If you mean tax haven bank accounts, then their wealth will decrease. Bank accounts do not keep up with the rate of inflation.
When it's already "excess wealth", with more undoubtedly coming in continuously, does it matter?
>If you mean mutual funds, or low risk stocks, then that money does exist in the economy; it is being used to generate more wealth. Wealth is not something akin to mushrooms that send out spores; it has to be actively managed if even not by the owner of the wealth.
Is that part of the problem? That we have an "industry" that just churns money into more money?
>>73510400
No. Can you read? I didn't say that governments run thing as efficiently as a properly functioning market. And never would I say such a thing. Some corporates are inefficient as well. However the point of government is to run things that the corporate sector won't touch, or if does it will run it in a way that civilized people find unacceptable. One such thing is healthcare.
The rest of your post is even greater bullshit. Monopolies exist with or without government intervention. You have no knowledge of economics, or history.
>>73509683
>opened factories around the world
>implying outsourcing to the world is a good thing
>muh globalism is good for the west
Tell me how many shekels are you getting paid per post?
Don't bother arguing with this Jew globalist shill goys.
>>73504870
Trickle down works when the people employed by the companies are located in the Fatherland. Recently, labor has been shipped oversees. Now, trickle down does not work due to free trade and globalism. The concept works, depending on the circumstances of the time.
>>73506876
>The Clinton economy created over 23 million private sector jobs over 8 years. The best record in American history.
I thought that was Obama, you shill. Which is it? You also forgot your autistic "assburgers"
>>73510799
Thank you. I hope you feel better soon.
Trickledown economics, or whatever cuckservatives call it nowadays, is the single mostt retarded economic idea i have ever heard. Put simply.
>>73511139
t. Goy benefiting from globalism.
>>73511232
meant for >>73511058
>>73511119
No. Obama is only up to 14.6 million jobs. Nobody can beat based Bill Clinton's epic 23 million job creation.
That's still a lot better than top Republican thinker George W. Bush's 1 million jobs in 8 years.
Obama has the longest job creation streak in American history.
There's been a few too assburgers today but nothing too major. Screenshots are minimal.
>>73511071
>Trickle down works when the people employed by the companies are located in the Fatherland.
It never worked.
>>>73511119
>I thought that was Obama, you shill. Which is it? You also forgot your autistic "assburgers"
Clinton 23 millions, and Obama 14 million, iirc
>>73511232
Yes I am a goy, but you definitely post with a bit of Heeb about you. Except the happy merchants usually seem a lot cleverer. I guess snowkikes are less intelligent than their Ashkenazi counterparts
>>73511306
Keep doing god's work bro ;) The way those mouthbraeathers high school dropouts get so mad with simle facts is astonishing. It's nice to see the mental gymnastics those retards make when they see that RNC.com sponsored propaganda is wrong.
>>73511267
Ok, but trickle down is an *extremely* judaic idea imho
>>73510882
True. Especially if they're some kind of special snowflake or minority. Diversity quotas are real. I left the city when I got in a car accident (some fucking drunk idiot ran the red while I was stopped crossed over and crashed head on into me) had to be in the hospital for 2 weeks and wham I got out my job was gone and had been given to a fag because the company wanted to "promote diversity"
Now I'm living in a town that's 98% white atheist and we all help eachother and truly care about our wellbeing because we are all the same and don't want some degenerates shitskins or special religious considerations (eg halal)
Fuck diversity I'm never going back
>>73504870
It works, but globalism is fucking it up in America. Instead of us getting the benefits (i.e. a job), that benefit gets shipped overseas and we get jack shit.
>>73511411
>>73511491
t. Guy who can't win a war against birds.
>>73511520
>It works
When?
>>73511036
>When it's already "excess wealth", with more undoubtedly coming in continuously, does it matter?
Yes, yes it really does. Why doesn't everyone with enough money to retire simply retire?
>Is that part of the problem? That we have an "industry" that just churns money into more money?
Not inherently. Nothing has inherently changed about the arrangement as it is an eventuality in large business ventures; see Dutch dike building shares. The only thing that has changed is the speed and efficiency of investment.
>>73511232
>benefiting from globalism
>>73510489
>how does upward social mobility create jobs
If I'm able to go from working a 12-5 at minimum wage to a 9-5 full time at 20 or more an hour I can easily save and start a business and hire more people. This should be common sense.
>what regulations
The stupid shit mostly. I mean I'm personally against regulations overall but I'm not going to attempt to make that argument here. For example my friend is a health insurance agent. The regulations are stupid and rediculous in some areas and reasoned in others. Like he can't serve meals but he can serve snacks and he has to learn what is considered a meal and what is a snack. This takes him 2 or so days to memorize and regulations such as these discourage people from going into insurance even just on the sales level.
>us financial sector is most deregulated
[citation needed]
It's better to have fewer. A lot of these regulations prevent competition and create preferential treatment of certain political elites at their whims. Go read up on the Federal Reserve and it's origins and the legal plunder of not just us but the rest of the world and you'll get a better picture.
>introducing Third World wages are ridiculous
Well that is rediculous but that's not what I said. Its rediculous because it's a straw man. Go read up on price floors and get back to me. Also Denmark Sweden and Norway don't have minimum wages.
>haven't alluded to monopolistic practices
Well that's the Federal Reserve, all forms of government and etc. Monopolies only form when government grants special privileges to one company over any other. But I was just trying to explain to you, since you claim to be ignorant, that the complexity of our modern globalized society makes it hard to talk about singular theories and that you should study all the economic theories you can and isolate all other factors Before You can point to one thing being the sole cause of a major economic result.
>>73511306
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Only because he has been pumping the market full of fiat currency.
Which is, you know, a tax-cut for the richest. :^)
>>73505470
>but all other proposals involve abusing taxpayer money,
nah, you could just remove all taxes and public spending, eventually some rich prick will fix the roads to sell their wares or they'll just deliver everything by helicopter
thats a perfect solution for me
Works better than communism
>>73511553
Yeah but I can win an argument against Danes :)
>>73509037
>Look at some of the things we still get from the free market like cell phones, tv's and computers
yeah with slave factories in asia
>>73511306
>what is economic lag
>>73507242
>The rich are rich because they use their money to make more money.
no, US history shows that the rich stay rich by enforcing monopolies, thats how they do it in Europe also
>>73507568
>That 9/11 caused tremendous economic damage.
we were about to confiscate all kinds of stolen Enron money when the evidence blew up
>>73511670
:^)
>>73511742
I bet you have a poster of Trudeau on your wall with the quote "If you kill your enemy, they win".
>>73507462
and? Isn't that basically what Scandinavians follow?
>>73511487
Thanks Portubro.
Job openings are at all time highs.
Yet these skill-less Trumptards can't find any entry level jobs paying $50 per hour (as they expect) so they remain NEETs in their mothers basement. Finding solace in their /pol/ echo chamber where they can bitch about Obama and MUH imaginary 42% unemployment rate.
we told them it would trickle down,jpg
>>73504870
>Does Trickle down economics work?
It works for those at the top. It really comes down to whether you believe wealth(and thus resources)should be communally available, or if they should be able to be hoarded by those in power.
Statistically, the average is better under more socialist policies, but the highs and lows are worse. That is, there are less people at the very top, and less people at the very bottom. So it's harder to become fantastically, mind-blowingly rich, but you're more likely, on average, to be better off.
>>73511928
Come on, I'm excited to see the mental gymnastics of your reply to >>73511705 or >>73510244
>>73504870
Look at the us and ask yourself if it works.
>muh rights! Muh nonexistent riches!
Trickle down economic is code phrase for making bitches out of the lower 75%
>>73511041
Again you do not know what you're talking about. Number one, why is healthcare such a big issue in the first place? The reason, the enormous costs. Do you ever step back and wonder "why are the costs so high in the first place?" Hmmmmmm. They don't have to be if you understand free market economics.
A monopoly can never exist in a free market. Again you're wrong. If you and I started a department store that took off to compete against Wal-Mart. In a free market the barriers of entry and regulations is zero due to non government intervention. So we could start the company with a very little overhead and this gives us an advantage. Lets say its a success and we have expanded and we're taking market share away from Wal-Mart. Then Wal-Mart tries to take us out by cutting their margins and using predator pricing to put us out of business. Number 1: They wouldn't do this because the losses would be massive and the shareholders of the company would be pissed. Number 2 But lets say they did this and put us out of business. The problem is that after they have done this, they are now wounded from the losses occurred by putting us out of business. And in a true free market the door is open for another business to come in and take them on. This time around they cannot use Predatory pricing to take out the new company because they are so badly wounded from their previous go against us. This is why Monopolies cannot exist in a free market.
You're welcome.
>>73504870
It doesn't work.
Rich people have wealth because they save their money wisely. Investments come second to money in, money out.
Poor people don't have wealth because they spend more than they have the means to, either through credit, impulse buying, or a mixture of both.
In order to have a thriving economy, you need poor people going through their wages like a revolving door, but they can't be struggling to live.
Look up "velocity of money". Too many people at the top soaking up money slows down the economy.
The notion of working to earn your keep is correct, however the issue is more nuanced than "Gimme free stuff" or working on salaries that havent pace with inflation since 1971.
The capital gains tax on the highest earners is 1/3rd of what it used to be during the 1950s/1960s. The richest of the rich are indeed being gluttonous and it's costing the global economy, not only the American people.
>>73511699
I wasn't the 1st poster you were responding to, as he claimed to have little or no economic knowledge, whereas I had some university economic education.
I took issue with your use of 'social mobility', that is a category error. Social mobility has nothing directly to do with income. I agree with stupid regulation being a problem. I maintain that the US financial system is the most deregulated, and its also the most twisted, nowhere else (at least not in the 1st world) do you see so many ponzi schemes and junk financial products.
The only way I can see how eliminating minimum wages could help draw investment in a globalized economy is if there was real wage competition between the 1st world and the 3rd world. Of course there are some benefits in being close to markets and skilled labour, but 1st world advantages in these areas are constantly eroded. I could only see that your argument inevitably led to 3rd world style wages for rich countries.
Monopolies and effective monopolies are riddled throughout the system, its not just central banks although there is a good argument for having only one central bank. How can a functional economy have multiple monetary policies?
>>73511598
Back when we still had any sort of manufacturing power. That all gets shipped to China, Mexico, and Japan. No one builds their stuff here anymore. Ross Perot was right about the giant sucking sound.
>>73511705
Are you advocating a return to the gold standard?
>>73504870
It works if the rich actually spend/meaningfully invest the money they make
If it just piles up into the billions then nothing at all is "trickling down"
>>73512227
>A monopoly can never exist in a free market
lol. Libertarians are truly gullible retards. Truly the epitome of useful idiots
>>73511879
No, I'm quite happy killing you :)
>>73511885
Generally, they follow middle eastern penis
>>73504870
There's no such thing. "Trickle down" is a buzzword invented by the left.
>>73505316
Who's money is it in the first place you Marxist subhuman degenerate?
>>73512487
Name a single monopoly that came about without the help of government
>>73512308
>Back when we still had any sort of manufacturing power.
America in the 50's and 60's had almost 90% income tax on the richs. They weren't following "trickle down economics".
>>73512429
I'm advocating sound money.
>>73512518
But I'm still quite alive. Your non-arguments has me laughing at you with hearty condescension
>>73512134
Quantitative Easing has had a distorting effect, and it has led to new overvaluations in the market. This is a good argument against trickle down. QE hasn't solely benefited the rich, because others have been able to access cash, via the banks etc. But something that primarily benefits the rich by giving them large amounts of cash for nothing only distorts the system, and gives patchy economic benefits at best. So you really defeat your own argument.
>>73512487
Solid argument based with reason, logic, and facts.
LOL
>>73512606
Because governments explicitly forbid monopolies. Also there is no bussiness withput gov, so you will always find a way in wich the gov helped.
But i would say US Steel in the 19th century, and maybe even Carnegie railroads
>>73512134
I'm BTFO right wing retards here now
>>73510956
I didn't know you actually expected a reply to your retard statement. Cmon Frederick you got BTFO enough by me today. You can't even handle the Ausbro, worry about him for now.
of course it works. Who has 50k laying around to pay someone to do something?
Not poor people
Not middle class people
Rich people.
Cut their taxes, and rich people/rich corporations hire people and expand. Profit margins are minuscule in many
industries, every bit of tax relief makes a difference.
>>73512247
buddy here eh makes a good point
poor people continually make poor decisions in general, but they're really brutal with money, they have no clue what to do with it
I had 2 cousins who grew up in single mom welfare home broken home bullshit
they both got inheritance from my grandma and criminal compensation
they burned though like $20,000 in a year, my one cousin has a PS3 and 50 or 55 inch TV to show for it
so roughly $40,000 or more...probably more... and a PS3 and flat screen TV 50+ inches is all that's left
my one cousin may do better this time around, but the other will just blow it all on food, booze, 3 cell phones at the same time, classic ghetto dumb ass poor person shit
in short
no matter what you give how you give or how much you give to poor people when it comes to money/wealth their priorities are fucked and they almost always fuck up and blow all the money on stupid shit that won't be around in a year or two....
>>73512766
>using reason, logic, and facts with lolberatrians
lol
You know what Ayn Rand used to do in betwen her rants on Welfare? Collect Social Security. Lol
>>73511665
>Yes, yes it really does. Why doesn't everyone with enough money to retire simply retire?
Is "retirement" even a meaningful state at those levels of wealth? Their work isn't physically strenuous, and doesn't significantly interfere with living one's life.
>>73512227
Healthcare costs are far lower in countries with socialized medicine you dolt. There are heaps of companies that have had monopolistic or duopolistic control of markets with little or no government help. Some are listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Historical_monopolies (some of the examples are state control others are not, some are mixed state and private control)
You example is delusional. You think walmart couldn't endure a price war against some shitty nonentity company operating out of Buttfuck Iowa?
>>73512487
Exactly, its sad
>>73512731
> QE hasn't solely benefited the rich, because others have been able to access cash
LOL WHAT. Do you even read what you type? People cannot just go in and say "gib moni plz". People can only withdraw money that they have. QE comes through lower interest rates, and banks use that money to invest in the market: EXACTLY AS TAX BREAKS FOR RICH DOES.
>>73512635
Trickle down is workers benefiting from business expansion. You don't need to have low taxes for trickle down to work. It simply has to be that the country of origin for the business has to also be the place where business expands. NAFTA killed that, and we've lost nearly 700k manufacturing jobs as a result.
>>73504870
When Etherium and the DAO comes online we will solve all problems of unequal distribution.
:D
>>73512585
Its certainly not yours, posting as you do from Fritzl's dungeon
>>73512713
Only because you are halfwitted and delusional
>>73512980
>Not middle class people
>Middle class doesn't have money in savings
What the heel is happening in your country?
>Who has 50k laying around to pay someone to do something?
And who pays for the service that the investment will provide?
>Cut their taxes, and rich people/rich corporations hire people and expand.
Just like they did with Bush?
>>73512901
>I don't have an argument so I'll just redirect him to some other thread where I'll ignore him again :^)))
ok. you don't have an argument, I know.
>>73512981
And rich people buy several yatchs. Your point?
>>73512981
I guess what I'm saying is that giving poor people money, don't expect anything less than for them to be broke once again, they'll never save up and go to school to make more money, they'll never treat any kind of inheritance or bonus money as something to make their lives better
expect them to spend it on nonsense and expect them to be where they were before they got any kind of windfall
>>73512278
Well I'm talking about ones ability to go from poor to rich and how easily, I may be calling it the wrong thing but you know what i mean.
>abolishing minimum wages
Unions and companies can negotiate wages and I believe you're capable of making decisions for yourself and if you feel like you're worth more than 10 cents an hour you won't accept the position. It's just a natural way to deflate the economy. But in the context of places like Denmark they have the highest wages in the world while having no legal minimum.
>how can a functional economy work with multiple monetary policies
First off I never said there shouldn't be a Central Bank but your straw man happened to be accurate. It would happen just like the economy does on a global scale in the currency market but one could mandate a gold standard and public financial records to show how much gold is in reserve so banks cant lie about how much their currency is worth. But more simply if you want to argue for a Central Bank I'll entertain it, but the Federal Reserve is worse than a Central Bank and if a Central Bank were to be the best option then it shouldn't be allowed to manipulate interest rates and it should be forced to abide by the gold or silver standard.
>>73513040
Everything you just said is inherently opinion based. Economically speaking, what a person does, or the labor a person puts in is not necessarily a factor in the creation of wealth.
Digging ditches is very strenuous, but is arguably less productive than trading futures.
>>73513139
Haven't you heard of bank loans you fucking idiot?
Liquidity in the system averted a financial meltdown. Did you read about economics on the back of a fucking cornflakes packet? Go back to raping seals, your time would be spent more productively. Never heard of a fucking personal loan, or a home loan? My God you are beyond stupid
>>73505161
Coming to /pol/ for advice on economics was your first mistake, the US has had trickle down economics for two decades and middle class wages are stagnated while productivity is up, so people are working harder for less wages
>>73513146
> from business expansion.
And why do bussiness expand?
Because they have a larger market that they can't satisfy
And how does one enlarge a market?
By increasing the amount of "spending money"
And hpw does one do that?
We could decrease taxes on poor/middle class people. That way they can spend mre on products and our companies will sell more.
>>73506503
So money comes from a giant bottle in the sky?
Capitalists, stop fighting this battle. This battle is the one the Dems won in the 90s against the Bush/Reagan GOP. Don't argue for trickle down economics, just change the words (like liberals do when they lose an argument!)
Say "a rising tide lifts all ships", point out that "capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic institution in human history"
Point out how China, by using capitalism, went from being a pajama wearing backwater (under socialism) to being the second richest, most powerful country on the planet. Point out how Britain NEEDED to lower corporate taxes to become a banking/finance haven to grow their dwindling economy. When FUCKING LEAVES tell you bush and the GOP blew it (which they did by increasing spending and lowering taxes [clearly a bonehead move]) show them how their economy wouldn't be nearly as profitable if it didn't have oil and timber as well as cheap American and Chinese produced finished goods funded by, you guessed it, capitalism.
Capitalism creates growth. It's fucking bottled magic. Don't let these shit kicker socialists tell you rich people owe poor people anything. They're just mad they can't afford to own a house and buy a new tv because they majored in poly sci, art, or sociology in college. They want to diminish rich people because they think it will elevate poor people. I've got news for you; when you diminish the rich you diminish everyone. Forcibly sharing the profit generated by private individuals is a sure fire way to waste that money. Rich people do hoard money, and they should spend it to help the economy, but forcibly taking money from them (literally under the muzzle of a gun) will cause them to leave the country that is doing it to them. When the rich leave for fairer shores you can be assured that they'll just tax the next richest folks and so on and so on until everyone is pooR.
>>73513355
>bank loans
Bank loans don't come from QE. Those come from fractional reserve banking. Are you this fucking stupid, really?
QEs are not bailouts, they're meant to ease market conditions. Jesus fucking christ dude.
>>73504870
>giving corporations monies doesn't maek jorbs!
>unless those corporations are "green energy" startups then Obammy should throw billions of dollars at them so we can have green jobs! :^)
I wish being liberal caused physical pain.
>>73513201
It's not societies either. Therefore a tax cut is in no way an "upward redistribution of wealth" you can't re-distribute something to someone who owned it in the first place. That economist is just a marxist degenerate who deserves to have his head put in a vice like in the movie "Casino".
>>73513119
Dude you do not understand. The United States government has the biggest racket going in healthcare between them and the PIC and MIC. Ever since Medicare and Medicaid, health care costs have skyrocketed. Its anything but free market. Again you have no concept of Austrian Economics whatsoever. If healthcare was truly free market, we would not even be talking about it. The costs would be crazy low, and due to the technology and true innovation in a free market. There would be actual cures for diseases. Do you ever wonder why we can't even cure the common cold? Hmmmmmmm.
>>73513524
The business does have to forego consumption in order to invest in more capital to increase production though.
>>73513294
>I guess what I'm saying is that giving poor people money, don't expect anything less than for them to be broke once again, they'll never save up and go to school to make more money, they'll never treat any kind of inheritance or bonus money as something to make their lives better
kill yourself please. Fuckers like you need to die. So a person is dumb or reckless just because she is poor? And a person is smart and carefull just because she was born rich? Fuck You.
>>73504870
There's no such thing as the "Trickle Down" theory. It's a meme that was made up by liberals to try and slander Reagan for words he never uttered. It's simply typical liberal strawmanning.
>>73513585
>giving corporations monies doesn't maek jorbs!
They were proven right. Bush tax cuts didn't create a spike in jobs, even though he inherited one of the best US economies.
>unless those corporations are "green energy" startups then Obammy should throw billions of dollars at them so we can have green jobs! :^)
I can get behind this. Research in Green energy is important
It's not doublethink
>>73513119
Also there has been only two monopolies ever created without government intervention. They are Debeers Diamond company, and the NYSE.
>>73505352
Hol up
Are you telling me
*smacks lips
iz you be tellin me
*murder rapes white woman
do you be sayin
hol up do you be sayin taxing people more be making the gonent rich like yt
>>73507328
Higher returns are often the reason to hold it off shores. Either through interest on holdings or storing it for use in foreign investments so you aren't taxed at the higher American capital gains or income tax through distributions.
>>73513331
>Well I'm talking about ones ability to go from poor to rich and how easily, I may be calling it the wrong thing but you know what i mean.
Yeah I guess I was being pedantic on that one.
It isn't necessary obviously that removing minimum wage will lead to a race to the bottom, but I think it was you that alluded to cultural factors, and Scandinavia is more culturally egalitarian I would suggest than the US is. But to truly compete globally, you need to lower wages. I thought that was implicit in your argument. If not, how will wage deregulation help trickle down to work?
Also, referring to monetary policy wasn't at all a straw man. The Fed acts as central bank and therefore that is its area of monopoly, but it does this effectively as a quasi-statutory body. Central Banks in most countries are de facto and de jure statutory bodies. A return to the gold standard is an interesting idea, it certainly would produce more stability over time, but there would be copious happy merchant tears as their apparent acres of wealth were reduced to a few small fields. This is because gold reserves couldn't cover a fraction of the money in the US, let alone global economy
>>73513288
>And rich people buy several yatchs. Your point?
my point is rich people can afford those yachts because they do simple math and don't spend above their means and go broke, which is how/why they are rich
being poor is as much of a mentality as it is opportunity, being born in America you 100% can make it out of the ghetto, it's just are you willing to sacrifice never going outside, doing all your homework, reading actual books to learn more, making the right decisions 100% of the time, finding a mentor or someone who can direct you away from all the shitty priorities and mentalities you grow up with and feel comfortable with
there are always dishes that need to be washed somewhere, there is always manual labor needed, I personally don't buy into the excuses black niggers have in america as to why they can't hold a steady job and get an education but they always find excuses and where you find excuses you will not find progress
poor people have the worst mentalities and views and priorities, giving them more money won't help anything
let's say Randy's monthly rent is $800 inclusive, cell phone, cable, internet are $120, auto insurance and gas for car $250 that's $1170 a month just so he can have somewhat essential things, so he has a place to live and a way to get to work and find work
if you give Randy the white trash moron more money, his bills won't be any more paid, you're literally just giving him more rope to hang himself, he'll buy a big screen TV and only have $150 for his car insurance and gas for the month, when before he didn't have the credit to acquire the TV or the capital, well now he's got more money and he's just $100 short of that TV....well fuck, he needs a 4K TV to watch nascar....
that's the type of shit poor people do, and now he's $100 short on his bills, and his next months bills for that are $350 instead of $250 so he's digging the hole deeper and that's how it begins with poor people, shitty decisions
>>73513744
Oh fuck off Portugal. Savings increases wealth, spending does not.
