Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The mindset behind trickle down economics in the US

Page 3 of 11 [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

05 Aug 2019, 3:17 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
But wages and employment are nowhere near what they had been in my dad's day when he had a great paying industrial job, my mom could stay home, I was spoiled rotten as a kid, and we all had fantastic medical benefits. That began to change when that senile old man, Ronny Raygun, gave us trickle down and allowed for corporate full scale war against organized labor and labor laws. Since, working people have been the losers.

The question is HOW should we best allocate resources in the world?

Capitalists say, "Allocate based on efficiency".

Moving productivity to poor Mexicans, Indians, Bangladeshis, and Chinese from lesser efficient Americans has lifted millions of poor people out of poverty.

It's not racist, not sexist, not nationalist.

Capitalists say, "[FREEDOM of free trade, to seek efficiency] is the fairest system we got".


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

05 Aug 2019, 4:09 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
This video is so bad.

let me knock down some of points made ...

Conservatives ….
a. want FREEDOM (from government)
b. believe in individualism / self-reliance.
c. don't trust liberals, because they see the unintentional damage liberals do.
d. believe that prosperity is not a zero-sum game; rather, everyone's standard of living can be raised.
e. likely believe liberals are naïve, because liberals don't appear to account for human behavior.
f. likely believe liberals are naïve, because liberals put their trust in government agents
g. (capitalists) know that prosperity comes from productivity (not a welfare state).
h. like lower taxes, less regulation, because it helps raise productivity (thus, raise prosperity).
i. likely want to keep the money they earn because, well, they earned it.


Yes we all know what conservatives think about liberals does not make them right however :lol: . Also productivity comes from happy relaxed people not over-worked tired people who don't get paid enough to afford a 1 bedroom apartment on their own.

Also, how is it any better to trust corporate CEOs, do they care about the wellbeing of the people of this country? Putting too much trust in government is a bad thing for sure, but its not like its a better choice to just trust in the corporations to keep the best interests of the public in mind.

Conservatives grant that CEOs are greedy and devious.

However, conservatives counter that greed and deviousness are human traits that will exist in government agents as well (that liberals want to put their trust in).

The government agents, however, has power over you, and can use that power to enforce their greed (and bad decisions).

Here is a relevant interview … with a conservative (capitalist) response ...


Yup, the OP video also discusses that view at 12:12. Conservatives don't believe that equal societies--like many of those in Europe--are real, so they believe that the smart liberals are really "just trying to sneak someone else to the top".


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Last edited by beneficii on 05 Aug 2019, 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2019, 5:07 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But wages and employment are nowhere near what they had been in my dad's day when he had a great paying industrial job, my mom could stay home, I was spoiled rotten as a kid, and we all had fantastic medical benefits. That began to change when that senile old man, Ronny Raygun, gave us trickle down and allowed for corporate full scale war against organized labor and labor laws. Since, working people have been the losers.

The question is HOW should we best allocate resources in the world?

Capitalists say, "Allocate based on efficiency".

Moving productivity to poor Mexicans, Indians, Bangladeshis, and Chinese from lesser efficient Americans has lifted millions of poor people out of poverty.

It's not racist, not sexist, not nationalist.

Capitalists say, "[FREEDOM of free trade, to seek efficiency] is the fairest system we got".


In the meantime, more and more Americans get left behind and lose the standard of living they're used to.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

05 Aug 2019, 11:14 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But wages and employment are nowhere near what they had been in my dad's day when he had a great paying industrial job, my mom could stay home, I was spoiled rotten as a kid, and we all had fantastic medical benefits. That began to change when that senile old man, Ronny Raygun, gave us trickle down and allowed for corporate full scale war against organized labor and labor laws. Since, working people have been the losers.

The question is HOW should we best allocate resources in the world?

Capitalists say, "Allocate based on efficiency".

Moving productivity to poor Mexicans, Indians, Bangladeshis, and Chinese from lesser efficient Americans has lifted millions of poor people out of poverty.

It's not racist, not sexist, not nationalist.

Capitalists say, "[FREEDOM of free trade, to seek efficiency] is the fairest system we got".


In the meantime, more and more Americans get left behind and lose the standard of living they're used to.

So, when unions, trade-protectionists, some Democrats, some Socialists say, "Let's be nationalistic and protect our jobs".

What do you say to such nationalism?

You support Trump's tariffs? You support Trump ending free trade deals?


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

05 Aug 2019, 1:05 pm

beneficii wrote:
Real wages are still lower than their peak in the 1970s:

Image

And life expectancy has declined for 3 years straight:

https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the ... tdrop.html


That's because you're looking at hourly earnings of "production and non-supervisory employees." Real income has increased for all quintiles except the bottom 1 (for which it has stayed flat). This is because new economic sectors have created more non-production supervisory jobs than 30 years ago.

Image

And yes, life expectancy is on a recent decline. It's still higher than the 1970s.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2019, 3:16 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But wages and employment are nowhere near what they had been in my dad's day when he had a great paying industrial job, my mom could stay home, I was spoiled rotten as a kid, and we all had fantastic medical benefits. That began to change when that senile old man, Ronny Raygun, gave us trickle down and allowed for corporate full scale war against organized labor and labor laws. Since, working people have been the losers.

The question is HOW should we best allocate resources in the world?

Capitalists say, "Allocate based on efficiency".

Moving productivity to poor Mexicans, Indians, Bangladeshis, and Chinese from lesser efficient Americans has lifted millions of poor people out of poverty.

It's not racist, not sexist, not nationalist.

Capitalists say, "[FREEDOM of free trade, to seek efficiency] is the fairest system we got".


In the meantime, more and more Americans get left behind and lose the standard of living they're used to.

So, when unions, trade-protectionists, some Democrats, some Socialists say, "Let's be nationalistic and protect our jobs".

What do you say to such nationalism?

You support Trump's tariffs? You support Trump ending free trade deals?


Nationalism is putting one's nation above all others to the point of regarding everyone else as enemies, even scapegoated citizens of said nation. Wanting the best for Americans is hardly the same thing.
I oppose Trump's tariffs because they've been applied nonsensically, causing self harm to Americans. Trump is too stupid to even understand exactly what a Tariff is! He thinks foreign countries are paying the cost of his policies!


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

05 Aug 2019, 5:48 pm

Antrax wrote:
blazingstar wrote:
Antrax wrote:
blazingstar wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Most wealth does not sit in bank vaults but instead is either spent or invested. Invested and spent wealth tends to be good for the economy.


I am not certain that statement is accurate. I'm no expert, but I believe I read that a significant portion of the current state of economics is due to the wealthy sinking their money into investments that do not grow the economy.


Care to offer specifics on these "investments." All invested wealth needs to generate a rate of return based in economic productivity or government debt. Anything else is a pyramid scheme that eventually collapses.


Investments in valuable art, jewelry are examples. The ROI is greatly deferred.


If a wealthy person invests in a work of art, jewelry etc. they must liquidate that money to give to an art dealer or jeweler, who in turn either saves, invests, or spends that money. Saved money is the only money that exits the economy.


The wealthy are not buying their jewelry or art from my local neighborhood store. They are purchasing from people in the same wealth class. I think it keeps circulating around the stratosphere and does not come down to ordinary people.


_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot


wowiexist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 660
Location: Dallas, TX

06 Aug 2019, 12:04 pm

Antrax wrote:
I hate the term trickle down economics. Tax cuts that spur economic growth are good for all people rich and poor alike. Tax cuts that don't spur economic growth are not good for all people. It's really that simple. Supply side/trickle down economics means that cutting taxes on the rich sometimes spurs economic growth, and is sometimes good for all people.

The mindset of "tax the hell out of the rich" is based in envy rather than any kind of economics. Most wealth does not sit in bank vaults but instead is either spent or invested. Invested and spent wealth tends to be good for the economy.


It seems like tax cuts for the rich generally don’t spur economic growth. They were attempted during the Bush administration and didn’t work. Even though the economy is overall statistically in good shape now the most recent tax cuts have not helped. They could be detrimental if they continue to raise the national deficit.



Roboto
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 336

06 Aug 2019, 12:08 pm

Trickle down economics is nothing more than corporate welfare and it's amazing to me that Reagan is the modern day poster child for "conservative" leadership. In my mind he started this madness of government and private industry collusion that we have today that is funneling all wealth and power to a very small elite few.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

06 Aug 2019, 12:50 pm

wowiexist wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I hate the term trickle down economics. Tax cuts that spur economic growth are good for all people rich and poor alike. Tax cuts that don't spur economic growth are not good for all people. It's really that simple. Supply side/trickle down economics means that cutting taxes on the rich sometimes spurs economic growth, and is sometimes good for all people.

The mindset of "tax the hell out of the rich" is based in envy rather than any kind of economics. Most wealth does not sit in bank vaults but instead is either spent or invested. Invested and spent wealth tends to be good for the economy.


It seems like tax cuts for the rich generally don’t spur economic growth. They were attempted during the Bush administration and didn’t work. Even though the economy is overall statistically in good shape now the most recent tax cuts have not helped. They could be detrimental if they continue to raise the national deficit.

why not?

A rich person buys a sports car, a mansion, a jet, stock ownership … spent money gets cycled through the economy.

Also, rich people likely invest their money wisely, which is a super-benefit to the economy, compared to "Joe Commoner" that blows his money on booze, cigarettes, and interest on credit card debt (limited value to the economy).


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

06 Aug 2019, 1:44 pm

wowiexist wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I hate the term trickle down economics. Tax cuts that spur economic growth are good for all people rich and poor alike. Tax cuts that don't spur economic growth are not good for all people. It's really that simple. Supply side/trickle down economics means that cutting taxes on the rich sometimes spurs economic growth, and is sometimes good for all people.

The mindset of "tax the hell out of the rich" is based in envy rather than any kind of economics. Most wealth does not sit in bank vaults but instead is either spent or invested. Invested and spent wealth tends to be good for the economy.


It seems like tax cuts for the rich generally don’t spur economic growth. They were attempted during the Bush administration and didn’t work. Even though the economy is overall statistically in good shape now the most recent tax cuts have not helped. They could be detrimental if they continue to raise the national deficit.


The economy is a vastly complex system and effects of various policies are hotly debated. Economists of all stripes agree on the basic principles but not the effects of specific policies.

Example: minimum wage. Some economists argue a modest minimum wage hike from say $9/hour to $11/hour would not increase unemployment or inflation. However no economist would argue that hiking minimum wage from $9/hour to $50/hour would not increase unemployment or inflation. Economists agree on the principle of minimum wage hikes, but disagree on the sensitivity.

It's the same with tax policy. Economists all agree that taxation decreases economic productivity. They also all agree that certain government spending policies spur economic productivity. They hotly debate specific tax policy and government spending policy because trying to isolate the effect of a single policy is very difficult.

There's a very real possibility that the Trump adminstration's tax policy and trade policy are counterbalancing each other. While one is spurring growth, the other is hurting it. Or they could both be relatively inconsequential.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

06 Aug 2019, 1:53 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
This video is so bad.

let me knock down some of points made ...

Conservatives ….
a. want FREEDOM (from government)
b. believe in individualism / self-reliance.
c. don't trust liberals, because they see the unintentional damage liberals do.
d. believe that prosperity is not a zero-sum game; rather, everyone's standard of living can be raised.
e. likely believe liberals are naïve, because liberals don't appear to account for human behavior.
f. likely believe liberals are naïve, because liberals put their trust in government agents
g. (capitalists) know that prosperity comes from productivity (not a welfare state).
h. like lower taxes, less regulation, because it helps raise productivity (thus, raise prosperity).
i. likely want to keep the money they earn because, well, they earned it.


Blithely assuming that the rich earned everything is not realistic. Being mistrustful of each other is exactly what creates recessions. Partisan inability to get along is an economic death sentence.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Aug 2019, 2:58 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
wowiexist wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I hate the term trickle down economics. Tax cuts that spur economic growth are good for all people rich and poor alike. Tax cuts that don't spur economic growth are not good for all people. It's really that simple. Supply side/trickle down economics means that cutting taxes on the rich sometimes spurs economic growth, and is sometimes good for all people.

The mindset of "tax the hell out of the rich" is based in envy rather than any kind of economics. Most wealth does not sit in bank vaults but instead is either spent or invested. Invested and spent wealth tends to be good for the economy.


It seems like tax cuts for the rich generally don’t spur economic growth. They were attempted during the Bush administration and didn’t work. Even though the economy is overall statistically in good shape now the most recent tax cuts have not helped. They could be detrimental if they continue to raise the national deficit.

why not?

A rich person buys a sports car, a mansion, a jet, stock ownership … spent money gets cycled through the economy.

Also, rich people likely invest their money wisely, which is a super-benefit to the economy, compared to "Joe Commoner" that blows his money on booze, cigarettes, and interest on credit card debt (limited value to the economy).


That purchase of booze and cancer sticks, along with other purchases also spurs the economy on. In fact, Joe Commoner spends most of his money, whereas the wealthy, despite having made some purchases, puts most of that money away into savings accounts, taking that money out of circulation.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

06 Aug 2019, 3:16 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
wowiexist wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I hate the term trickle down economics. Tax cuts that spur economic growth are good for all people rich and poor alike. Tax cuts that don't spur economic growth are not good for all people. It's really that simple. Supply side/trickle down economics means that cutting taxes on the rich sometimes spurs economic growth, and is sometimes good for all people.

The mindset of "tax the hell out of the rich" is based in envy rather than any kind of economics. Most wealth does not sit in bank vaults but instead is either spent or invested. Invested and spent wealth tends to be good for the economy.


It seems like tax cuts for the rich generally don’t spur economic growth. They were attempted during the Bush administration and didn’t work. Even though the economy is overall statistically in good shape now the most recent tax cuts have not helped. They could be detrimental if they continue to raise the national deficit.

why not?

A rich person buys a sports car, a mansion, a jet, stock ownership … spent money gets cycled through the economy.

Also, rich people likely invest their money wisely, which is a super-benefit to the economy, compared to "Joe Commoner" that blows his money on booze, cigarettes, and interest on credit card debt (limited value to the economy).


That purchase of booze and cancer sticks, along with other purchases also spurs the economy on. In fact, Joe Commoner spends most of his money, whereas the wealthy, despite having made some purchases, puts most of that money away into savings accounts, taking that money out of circulation.


Most money of the wealthy is invested. Only a small percentage is saved. If you want to blame anyone for saving blame that damn middle class.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

06 Aug 2019, 6:39 pm

Antrax wrote:
If you want to blame anyone for saving blame that damn middle class.


Damn middle class???


_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot


Roboto
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 336

06 Aug 2019, 6:43 pm

blazingstar wrote:
Antrax wrote:
If you want to blame anyone for saving blame that damn middle class.


Damn middle class???


Apparently racking up record levels of debt is now considered "saving." Who knew?