It' an absurd premise.
Can Someone Justify The Trickle Down Theory?
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
No but it's been the Republican/Conservative economic policy for most of the last 30 years. The one exception is when George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics".
I don't know if anyone can justify any ideology. Maybe one can find examples to support a line of thought.
Let's say you own a cruise line. You employ about 350 people per cruise. The BGOL family are your customers. When we cruise with you your employees are paid a salary. Hence trickle-down economics. The market dictates their salary, tips.
When those who have the means to spend on such luxuries cruise they spend money. Which allows your employees to have a job.
Is it that you feel employees should be made middle class to upper middle class?
How can they be made millionaires under democratic policies? Who simply keep the masses on life support from year to year. C'mon thought, billions have been spent on the war on poverty. People are still poor!!!
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Let's say you own a cruise line. You employ about 350 people per cruise. The BGOL family are your customers. When we cruise with you your employees are paid a salary. Hence trickle-down economics. The market dictates their salary, tips.
When those who have the means to spend on such luxuries cruise they spend money. Which allows your employees to have a job.
Is it that you feel employees should be made middle class to upper middle class?
How can they be made millionaires under democratic policies? Who simply keep the masses on life support from year to year. C'mon thought, billions have been spent on the war on poverty. People are still poor!!!
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
http://www.newsmax.com/
<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdaGnzprkU" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdaGnzprkU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3TlNsPFkyE&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3TlNsPFkyE&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
How Absurd is this???? Whatever Obama is doing it is not working!!!!
Where are the Jobs??? 9.6% unemployment!!!
Verdict's in: Obama's $1 Trillion Stimulus Is a Bust
Friday, 02 Jul 2010 01:52 PM Article Font Size
By: David A. Patten
A new report showing a net loss of 125,000 jobs adds to the growing avalanche of evidence the $1 trillion stimulus has failed to boost the economy as promised, according to a chorus of economic experts.
Democrats had been planning to herald this as the Summer of Recovery, expecting a peak in stimulus spending. But the dreary economic news is contributing to a rising chorus of complaints from conservative economists that the stimulus spending binge has failed to deliver as promised.
"Yeah, I think we can say the stimulus was a bust," Stephen Moore, a Wall Street Journal editorial board member and the newspaper's senior economics writer, tells Newsmax. "The real problem is that the president has no plan B. We've had plan A, that was spend a trillion in stimulus. That didn't work. We've lost 2.2 million jobs since we started that spending, and all the president wants to do is add more stimulus. That's what's so disappointing."
Friday's Bureau of Labor Statistics report was a mixed bag. Unemployment dropped to 9.5 percent, but the dip was primarily because more people gave up looking for work. Although private employment rose, there was a 225,000 drop in jobs because of the loss of temporary census employment.
Perhaps most significantly, the private economy added 83,000 jobs — far below the projections of 115,000 to 125,000 jobs that many private analysts anticipated.
Some experts had estimated the economy would add up to 200,000 jobs. The disappointing numbers would be bad enough on their own, but instead they come in the context of a wealth of other indications that all is not well with the American economy.
Pending home sales took a record dive, with the National Association of Realtors' index of new home sales falling by 30 percent. The index now stands 16 percent below its May 2009 level. Housing starts dropped as well.
New-vehicle sales are also stalling. In June, auto sales dropped 11 percent from May, although they are up 14 percent from June of 2009. The stock market has been heading downhill as well.
Newsmax asked Allan Meltzer, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University and author of "A History of the Federal Reserve," to evaluate the effectiveness of the Obama stimulus.
Meltzer spoke bluntly Wednesday: "Hasn't worked. The economy is better than it was in January 2009 than when he took office. But the unemployment rate isn't.
"There are two major reasons why. His stimulus program was much more aimed at redistributing income than in creating wealth. And the second reason is he creates enormous uncertainty about the future, and uncertainty is the enemy of growth, of jobs, of employment," Meltzer said.
Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron, author of the new book "Libertarianism, From A to Z," says defenders of the stimulus are saying, "If we hadn't had the stimulus we would have had 10 or 12 percent unemployment, because the stimulus worked, and we need even more stimulus."
But Miron says it is clear the president's policies have generated uncertainty for the business community, and employment is not bouncing back as expected.
"The concern is this conventional spend-our-way-out of recession approach doesn't work, or doesn't work very well, and certainly not to the degree its proponents were claiming back in 2009," Miron tells Newsmax.
Increasingly, CEOs have begun complaining that the administration has been less than friendly to business.
The latest example: GE CEO Jeff Immelt, who Thursday charged "business did not like the U.S. president, and the president did not like business." A spokesman for Immelt later said those remarks, quoted in the Financial Times, were taken out of context.
"I don't think it's that surprising someone would say that," Miron tells Newsmax. "I don't think [President Obama] has indicated by his actions in office — separate from his rhetoric before holding office — that he's pro business. He says sort of condescending things about business, characterizing business as somehow evil for wanting to make profits. But from an economist's point of view, that's what business is supposed to be doing, making profits."
Miron says he shares the view that the president isn't particularly friendly toward businesses.
"What policy step has he proposed that could be considered pro-business?" Miron said. "Not a single one as far as I'm aware of."
Economists aren't the only ones who see the jobless report as more evidence the stimulus has turned out to be a trillion-dollar dud. Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., released a statement calling for the president to halt "a campaign-style public relations tour" and take steps to bolster the private sector.
"If Democrats were truly focused on the economy, they would stop with the uncertainty and the job-killing agenda," Price said, adding: “Responsible leadership that respects the private sector would do wonders for our economy."
Fox News commentator and best-selling author Dick Morris recently gave the administration's handling of the economy a failing grade as well.
"Time after time since the start of the recession, Obama has used the crisis to expand the size and power of government — even when doing so would not only fail to solve the problem, but would worsen it," Morris said.
"It may be totally reasonable to say, 'Look the jury may not be 100 percent back in on spending to stimulate the economy,'" Miron says. "But the betting against it sure ought to be negative.
Moore sees an even bigger threat on the horizon: He says the administration is intentionally red-lining the nation's debt crisis to justify huge tax increases in the coming year. The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that the national debt will grow to 62 percent of the nation's economic output by year's end. Democrats have cited that grim news to call for higher taxes.
"That's exactly what Obama wants to do," Moore says. "That will cripple any recovery we might have. They've set up record deficits and now they want American taxpayers to pay for it… hopefully the Republicans won't go along."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdaGnzprkU" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdaGnzprkU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3TlNsPFkyE&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3TlNsPFkyE&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
How Absurd is this???? Whatever Obama is doing it is not working!!!!
Where are the Jobs??? 9.6% unemployment!!!
Verdict's in: Obama's $1 Trillion Stimulus Is a Bust
Friday, 02 Jul 2010 01:52 PM Article Font Size
By: David A. Patten
A new report showing a net loss of 125,000 jobs adds to the growing avalanche of evidence the $1 trillion stimulus has failed to boost the economy as promised, according to a chorus of economic experts.
Democrats had been planning to herald this as the Summer of Recovery, expecting a peak in stimulus spending. But the dreary economic news is contributing to a rising chorus of complaints from conservative economists that the stimulus spending binge has failed to deliver as promised.
"Yeah, I think we can say the stimulus was a bust," Stephen Moore, a Wall Street Journal editorial board member and the newspaper's senior economics writer, tells Newsmax. "The real problem is that the president has no plan B. We've had plan A, that was spend a trillion in stimulus. That didn't work. We've lost 2.2 million jobs since we started that spending, and all the president wants to do is add more stimulus. That's what's so disappointing."
Friday's Bureau of Labor Statistics report was a mixed bag. Unemployment dropped to 9.5 percent, but the dip was primarily because more people gave up looking for work. Although private employment rose, there was a 225,000 drop in jobs because of the loss of temporary census employment.
Perhaps most significantly, the private economy added 83,000 jobs — far below the projections of 115,000 to 125,000 jobs that many private analysts anticipated.
Some experts had estimated the economy would add up to 200,000 jobs. The disappointing numbers would be bad enough on their own, but instead they come in the context of a wealth of other indications that all is not well with the American economy.
Pending home sales took a record dive, with the National Association of Realtors' index of new home sales falling by 30 percent. The index now stands 16 percent below its May 2009 level. Housing starts dropped as well.
New-vehicle sales are also stalling. In June, auto sales dropped 11 percent from May, although they are up 14 percent from June of 2009. The stock market has been heading downhill as well.
Newsmax asked Allan Meltzer, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University and author of "A History of the Federal Reserve," to evaluate the effectiveness of the Obama stimulus.
Meltzer spoke bluntly Wednesday: "Hasn't worked. The economy is better than it was in January 2009 than when he took office. But the unemployment rate isn't.
"There are two major reasons why. His stimulus program was much more aimed at redistributing income than in creating wealth. And the second reason is he creates enormous uncertainty about the future, and uncertainty is the enemy of growth, of jobs, of employment," Meltzer said.
Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron, author of the new book "Libertarianism, From A to Z," says defenders of the stimulus are saying, "If we hadn't had the stimulus we would have had 10 or 12 percent unemployment, because the stimulus worked, and we need even more stimulus."
But Miron says it is clear the president's policies have generated uncertainty for the business community, and employment is not bouncing back as expected.
"The concern is this conventional spend-our-way-out of recession approach doesn't work, or doesn't work very well, and certainly not to the degree its proponents were claiming back in 2009," Miron tells Newsmax.
Increasingly, CEOs have begun complaining that the administration has been less than friendly to business.
The latest example: GE CEO Jeff Immelt, who Thursday charged "business did not like the U.S. president, and the president did not like business." A spokesman for Immelt later said those remarks, quoted in the Financial Times, were taken out of context.
"I don't think it's that surprising someone would say that," Miron tells Newsmax. "I don't think [President Obama] has indicated by his actions in office — separate from his rhetoric before holding office — that he's pro business. He says sort of condescending things about business, characterizing business as somehow evil for wanting to make profits. But from an economist's point of view, that's what business is supposed to be doing, making profits."
Miron says he shares the view that the president isn't particularly friendly toward businesses.
"What policy step has he proposed that could be considered pro-business?" Miron said. "Not a single one as far as I'm aware of."
Economists aren't the only ones who see the jobless report as more evidence the stimulus has turned out to be a trillion-dollar dud. Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., released a statement calling for the president to halt "a campaign-style public relations tour" and take steps to bolster the private sector.
"If Democrats were truly focused on the economy, they would stop with the uncertainty and the job-killing agenda," Price said, adding: “Responsible leadership that respects the private sector would do wonders for our economy."
Fox News commentator and best-selling author Dick Morris recently gave the administration's handling of the economy a failing grade as well.
"Time after time since the start of the recession, Obama has used the crisis to expand the size and power of government — even when doing so would not only fail to solve the problem, but would worsen it," Morris said.
"It may be totally reasonable to say, 'Look the jury may not be 100 percent back in on spending to stimulate the economy,'" Miron says. "But the betting against it sure ought to be negative.
Moore sees an even bigger threat on the horizon: He says the administration is intentionally red-lining the nation's debt crisis to justify huge tax increases in the coming year. The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that the national debt will grow to 62 percent of the nation's economic output by year's end. Democrats have cited that grim news to call for higher taxes.
"That's exactly what Obama wants to do," Moore says. "That will cripple any recovery we might have. They've set up record deficits and now they want American taxpayers to pay for it… hopefully the Republicans won't go along."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Last edited:
Trickle down/supply side economics has been proven a bust repeatedly. By design, it has the greatest amount of people competing for the least amount of resources.
Or to expand Gunner's example
Wouldn't it be better to put more money in the hands of working class people so that more of them could afford to take cruises? Wouldn't that ultimately be better for the employees of the cruise line to have more customers instead of fewer?
Or to expand Gunner's example
Wouldn't it be better to put more money in the hands of working class people so that more of them could afford to take cruises? Wouldn't that ultimately be better for the employees of the cruise line to have more customers instead of fewer?
Mr. Dave, there is no perfect economic system.
But for some strange odd reason thousands of our latino brothers cross the desert on a daily basis to get to a free market system. Our cuban and hatian brothers climb onto rickety boats to get to our shores all in the name of freedom.
I don't remember Russia ever having a problem with illegals floating to their shores.
As I recall, most communist nations have more people whom are not free and have armed guards on the border to keep the people from leaving.
If our system is so bad can you please name one that is superior to ours?
I mean lets be frank here, if the right is for the rich only ( as most democrats assume) wouldn't they want to keep their base rich to retain their power in congress?
Then if the democratic base is for the downtrodden wouldn't they want to keep their base poor to retain power. Because if they equip them with the where with all to better their lot in life they would lose power.
Look at the poorest cities they are still poor, yet and still come election time the left blame the right even when they control the mayors seat, councilmen seat and the school boards.
But for some strange odd reason thousands of our latino brothers cross the desert on a daily basis to get to a free market system. Our cuban and hatian brothers climb onto rickety boats to get to our shores all in the name of freedom.
I don't remember Russia ever having a problem with illegals floating to their shores.
As I recall, most communist nations have more people whom are not free and have armed guards on the border to keep the people from leaving.
If our system is so bad can you please name one that is superior to ours?
I mean lets be frank here, if the right is for the rich only ( as most democrats assume) wouldn't they want to keep their base rich to retain their power in congress?
Then if the democratic base is for the downtrodden wouldn't they want to keep their base poor to retain power. Because if they equip them with the where with all to better their lot in life they would lose power.
Look at the poorest cities they are still poor, yet and still come election time the left blame the right even when they control the mayors seat, councilmen seat and the school boards.
Last edited:
How can you talk about the "trickle down theory" when you support a theory just as outrageous, called Keynesian economics?
All these theories do is try to take private property from one group and give it to another group under force of the government.
Same thing. Different name.
All these theories do is try to take private property from one group and give it to another group under force of the government.
Same thing. Different name.
Agreed.
But ours need to evolve and change in order to fit our society.
I don't think economics are the only factor for why so many come to our shores. It's a mix of our 'freedoms', 'rights', 'economics' and social structure.
There is no trickle down, most of the big businesses come from somebody in the middle class with an idea. It wasn't somebody rich who created something, all they have to do is live off the interest or they are giving their money to somebody in another country.
A strong middle class paid good wages leads to prosperity.
A strong middle class paid good wages leads to prosperity.
the people who would justify "trickle down economics" are the people who get to use the $$$ first (ie. military industrial complex, banks etc.) As for the average citizen, we get "trickled on". This is just a result of the Federal Reserve System acting as a "central planner".
Damn shame that the so called free market defenders and the socialist both agree about this topic.
If you believe in the concept of externalities, then you have to ackowledge the concept of "trickle down economics.". It's the same fundamental theory of an extra cost or benefit associated with an economic transaction that is not reflected in the explicit price.
All of you can cite a negative version of it with pollution, but none of you want to believe the concept involves both cost and benefits.
The term trickle down is just politically marketing to make you like it or dislike it. The basis is net beneficial externality.
If you believe in the concept of externalities, then you have to ackowledge the concept of "trickle down economics.". It's the same fundamental theory of an extra cost or benefit associated with an economic transaction that is not reflected in the explicit price.
All of you can cite a negative version of it with pollution, but none of you want to believe the concept involves both cost and benefits.
The term trickle down is just politically marketing to make you like it or dislike it. The basis is net beneficial externality.
The assessment of any economic system depends on the particular individual being surveyed. If you are the low man on the totem pole than that system is fucked up to you. Regardless of the economic system.
Mexico is not a socialist system. It has a free market economy. Their system shares many of the same principles as the US economy. They don't come to this country seeking to escape socialism. This market is just more diverse and robust.
There are certainly illegal immigrants flocking to Russia(no longer a socialist based economy). It's a free market economy.
http://www.russiansabroad.com/russian_history_111.html
In 1993 Russia signed the United Nations Convention on Refugees, which reclassified it as a "country of first resort" for foreigners fleeing countries outside the CIS. Under the 1951 United Nations convention, this status entails an international obligation to care for such individuals. At the same time, the decline in border security since the dissolution of the Soviet Union has made illegal immigration easier in many areas. In the early 1990s, the number of official refugees swelled when students from Third World nations, particularly Afghanistan, refused to leave Russia when their studies were completed. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), about 28,000 foreign refugees were living illegally in Moscow in 1994; figures for other parts of Russia are not available. The UNHCR's Moscow total was divided among 20,000 Afghans, 6,000 Iraqis, 2,000 Somalis, and smaller numbers of Angolans, Ethiopians, and Zairians. A 1995 Moscow press report, however, estimated that 100,000 illegal immigrants were living in Moscow, including 50,000 Chinese and 15,000 Afghans
yeah but I'm coming from a slightly different angle.
Let's really look at this economy
1) The Too Big To Fail's needed govt assistance to stay afloat, this doesn't contribute to an economy.
2) The interest rate is controlled by the Federal Reserve (instead it being based in the free market)
3) Managed trade agreements have all but eliminated decent paying jobs that would propel "trickle-down"
All this to say, we don't live in a true "free market" society, thus all paper wealth is concentrated at the top. If people were allowed to keep more of their earnings along with no govt bailouts, I'd probably argue in favor of.
First of all, everything trickles down.
In any job, government/private, have downturns, the first group who gets all the stress is the lowest person on the totem pole. Same goes for success.
The whole point of the trickle down theory is that if a rich person has more money to spend, he will more than likely spend it. One thing nearly every wealthy person wants to do is find ways to make more wealth. Meaning, they will more than likely invest in things that would both help a talented person become wealthy, and help the person become more wealthy through their investment.
It's a simple concept...
In any job, government/private, have downturns, the first group who gets all the stress is the lowest person on the totem pole. Same goes for success.
The whole point of the trickle down theory is that if a rich person has more money to spend, he will more than likely spend it. One thing nearly every wealthy person wants to do is find ways to make more wealth. Meaning, they will more than likely invest in things that would both help a talented person become wealthy, and help the person become more wealthy through their investment.
It's a simple concept...
source: New York Times
By YVES SMITH and ROB PARENTEAU
Published: July 2, 2010
Are Profits Hurting Capitalism?
A STREAM of disheartening economic news last week, including flagging consumer confidence and meager private-sector job growth, is leading experts to worry that the recession is coming back. At the same time, many policymakers, particularly in Europe, are slashing government budgets in an effort to lower debt levels and thereby restore investor confidence, reduce interest rates and promote growth.
There is an unrecognized problem with this approach: Reductions in deficits have implications for the private sector. Higher taxes draw cash from households and businesses, while lower government expenditures withhold money from the economy. Making matters worse, businesses are already plowing fewer profits back into their own enterprises.
Over the past decade and a half, corporations have been saving more and investing less in their own businesses. A 2005 report from JPMorgan Research noted with concern that, since 2002, American corporations on average ran a net financial surplus of 1.7 percent of the gross domestic product — a drastic change from the previous 40 years, when they had maintained an average deficit of 1.2 percent of G.D.P. More recent studies have indicated that companies in Europe, Japan and China are also running unprecedented surpluses.
The reason for all this saving in the United States is that public companies have become obsessed with quarterly earnings. To show short-term profits, they avoid investing in future growth. To develop new products, buy new equipment or expand geographically, an enterprise has to spend money — on marketing research, product design, prototype development, legal expenses associated with patents, lining up contractors and so on.
Rather than incur such expenses, companies increasingly prefer to pay their executives exorbitant bonuses, or issue special dividends to shareholders, or engage in purely financial speculation. But this means they also short-circuit a major driver of economic growth.
Some may argue that businesses aren’t investing in growth because the prospects for success are so poor, but American corporate profits are nearly all the way back to their peak, right before the global financial crisis took hold.
Another problem for the economy is that, once the crisis began, families and individuals started tightening their belts, bolstering their bank accounts or trying to pay down borrowings (another form of saving).
If households and corporations are trying to save more of their income and spend less, then it is up to the other two sectors of the economy — the government and the import-export sector — to spend more and save less to keep the economy humming. In other words, there needs to be a large trade surplus, a large government deficit or some combination of the two. This isn’t a matter of economic theory; it’s based in simple accounting.
What if a government instead embarks on an austerity program? Income growth will stall, and household wages and business profits may fall.
That result might not sound bad for the United States, since lower wages and prices would make American goods more competitive abroad. But falling incomes make it even harder for people to make payments on outstanding loans. And if defaults and bankruptcies cascade through the financial system, credit becomes tighter still. Ultimately, there is a danger that deflation — falling wages and prices — will snowball into a depression.
So instead of pursuing budget retrenchment, policymakers need to create incentives for corporations to reinvest their profits in business operations. One way to do this would be to impose an aggressive tax on retained earnings that are not reinvested within two years. Another approach would be a tax on the turnover of corporate financial investments that would raise the cost of speculating with profits, rather than putting them into the business.
At the same time, the federal government must continue to encourage investment in the economy — ideally by creating incentives for investments in national priorities, like new energy technologies.
The entrepreneurial pursuit of profitable growth has been the vital engine of prosperity since the Industrial Revolution. Yet corporate executives are being rewarded for myopia and speculation, undermining the very operation of capitalism. We need tax and regulatory policies to counter this destructive development, along with wider recognition that government deficits, when they counteract corporate savings, are necessary and salutary.
<NYT_AUTHOR_ID>
By YVES SMITH and ROB PARENTEAU
Published: July 2, 2010
Are Profits Hurting Capitalism?
A STREAM of disheartening economic news last week, including flagging consumer confidence and meager private-sector job growth, is leading experts to worry that the recession is coming back. At the same time, many policymakers, particularly in Europe, are slashing government budgets in an effort to lower debt levels and thereby restore investor confidence, reduce interest rates and promote growth.
There is an unrecognized problem with this approach: Reductions in deficits have implications for the private sector. Higher taxes draw cash from households and businesses, while lower government expenditures withhold money from the economy. Making matters worse, businesses are already plowing fewer profits back into their own enterprises.
Over the past decade and a half, corporations have been saving more and investing less in their own businesses. A 2005 report from JPMorgan Research noted with concern that, since 2002, American corporations on average ran a net financial surplus of 1.7 percent of the gross domestic product — a drastic change from the previous 40 years, when they had maintained an average deficit of 1.2 percent of G.D.P. More recent studies have indicated that companies in Europe, Japan and China are also running unprecedented surpluses.
The reason for all this saving in the United States is that public companies have become obsessed with quarterly earnings. To show short-term profits, they avoid investing in future growth. To develop new products, buy new equipment or expand geographically, an enterprise has to spend money — on marketing research, product design, prototype development, legal expenses associated with patents, lining up contractors and so on.
Rather than incur such expenses, companies increasingly prefer to pay their executives exorbitant bonuses, or issue special dividends to shareholders, or engage in purely financial speculation. But this means they also short-circuit a major driver of economic growth.
Some may argue that businesses aren’t investing in growth because the prospects for success are so poor, but American corporate profits are nearly all the way back to their peak, right before the global financial crisis took hold.
Another problem for the economy is that, once the crisis began, families and individuals started tightening their belts, bolstering their bank accounts or trying to pay down borrowings (another form of saving).
If households and corporations are trying to save more of their income and spend less, then it is up to the other two sectors of the economy — the government and the import-export sector — to spend more and save less to keep the economy humming. In other words, there needs to be a large trade surplus, a large government deficit or some combination of the two. This isn’t a matter of economic theory; it’s based in simple accounting.
What if a government instead embarks on an austerity program? Income growth will stall, and household wages and business profits may fall.
That result might not sound bad for the United States, since lower wages and prices would make American goods more competitive abroad. But falling incomes make it even harder for people to make payments on outstanding loans. And if defaults and bankruptcies cascade through the financial system, credit becomes tighter still. Ultimately, there is a danger that deflation — falling wages and prices — will snowball into a depression.
So instead of pursuing budget retrenchment, policymakers need to create incentives for corporations to reinvest their profits in business operations. One way to do this would be to impose an aggressive tax on retained earnings that are not reinvested within two years. Another approach would be a tax on the turnover of corporate financial investments that would raise the cost of speculating with profits, rather than putting them into the business.
At the same time, the federal government must continue to encourage investment in the economy — ideally by creating incentives for investments in national priorities, like new energy technologies.
The entrepreneurial pursuit of profitable growth has been the vital engine of prosperity since the Industrial Revolution. Yet corporate executives are being rewarded for myopia and speculation, undermining the very operation of capitalism. We need tax and regulatory policies to counter this destructive development, along with wider recognition that government deficits, when they counteract corporate savings, are necessary and salutary.
<NYT_AUTHOR_ID>
Whether or not the federal government is a hindrance to trickle down economics (positive externalities) by taxing the productive rich and subsidizing the mooching lobbying rich has nothing to do with the validity of the concept of trickle down economics.
The socialist stated at the beginning that it was an absurd premise and you agreed.
I know all too well that the united states of America is not free economically or politically, but that's because the thoughtones rule the world and you agreed with one of their fundamental premises.
The age old question that libertarians and supply side wieners did not, will not and cannot answer is: what nation or era had complete lassie fair economic policies. This right wing utopia is just a an ideological talking point.
I have never denied that human freedom has never existed in this world. Maybe when there was only one human, but once there was two it was over. That first human found himself something to eat, then the second just bashed the first one over the head.
The concept or the articulation of the concept of human freedom is only a few hundred years old. Barely a blip in the timeline of all of human history, but it has an undeniable positive correlation to human success. So in the end you will lose.
The only obstacle I see is people don't think they deserve freedom. People like the so called free market defenders in this thread are still ashamed of the progress. That's why they agreed with your premise, and they didn't realize that by doing so they lost every subsequent argument for capitalism before they even began.
But you knew it didn't you.
Not true. I think we can all acknowledge the benefits and costs but some of us are saying the costs outweigh the benefits, making it a failure as an economic policy on a national scale.
It really is simple.
Spoken like a true socialist.
First of all, the only right wing "utopia" the right believes in is heaven itself. Let's get that straight right there. The right does not try to fool its supporters that their system of governing is the so-called "perfect" system. However, most on the right believes that our system is better than the left altogether. To believe in a Utopian vision, you have to NOT want to work for it. This is totally against the conservative philosophy. So, please, leave your leftist lingo out of this argument.
Secondly, no matter how you spin it, there's a trickle down effect going on. You are either trickling success, or stress. The rich man is going to stay rich no matter what. That's what socialist tend to forget. No matter how much you tax a rich person, they adapt to their surroundings. Not to mention, if you bump heads with the higher upper class too long, they tend to create revolutions.
The liberals and conservatives have this sense of entitlement that they are owed everyone's property.
The liberals think private property is bad and the governmnet should distribute it.
The conservatives think private property is bad and the corporations should distribute it.
Neither liberals nor conservatives believe in freedom and they hate rights and responsibilities. All they want is power and to concentrate it in...
big government
or
big corporations.
Both believe in heavily centralized, top-down economic systems with huge bureaucracies, an ineffective court system, and debt-based spending.
Trickle-down theory for conservatives.
Keynesianism for liberals.
They are ridiculous economic theories promoted by corporate and government economists that could only come from the cheap oil era of the 20th century.
People who believe in that crap are living in the past and will be swept away along with these outdated theories.
If you are under 30 and believe these "theories", it's because the older generations are using you to keep this lumbering beast from dying, just one more year. They are a fraud.
That's where you're simple generalizations fail you. It's not a matter of trying to make a rich man poor. Society needs entrepreneurs and people who sell goods and services. But no society can stand with the rich reaping all the benefits on the backs of the poor. That causes even more revolutions.
OOOO-WEEE. That sounds good but what economic policy would you recommend for a nation of 300 million and growing and aging?
Don't say anarchy because that's not even an intelligent answer. We've beaten that horse, dug it back up and beat it again.
Anarchy is the only intelligent alternative to supply-side economics. There wouldn't be figure heads controlling the distribution of wealth. There wouldn't be govt officials selling votes or a class of people who basically feed on everybody. Anarchy would eliminate the status quo.
nittie
I'll pull out my stick and beat this horse one more time with you in hopes you do a better job of defending this thinking that the last guy.
Is there or has there been one society or nation that shown where anarchy can work on a large scale as national economic policy? I'm not saying there's one for supply side economics either but just for anarchy, is there one example?
First off, I don't know what conservatives you talk to, but I do not want corporations to take over private property. I want the private citizen to capitalize on their own property, and create more wealth. Now, if that private owner wants to sell his land for profit, then its on him/her. I do, in fact, want some sort of regulation on the boundaries the corporation has to follow to eliminate monopolies. That's where strong LIMITED government comes into play.
Secondly, age has nothing to do with it. In fact, if age has something to do with anything, it would hinder OUR older generation to accept some sort of change. The older black generation is hindered because most of our people only see race as an issue. Thus, hindering them to think outside the box.
Third, you speak of the "beast". I believe there's two beasts. The pure socialist beast, and the pure capitalist beast. It's our job to keep both "beasts" in check with checks and balances. Sadly, not many on this board believes the socialist "beast" needs to be limited. Perhaps because most believe what the socialist "beast" says.
With every revolution, there was a well off man behind the scenes, pulling the strings of the oppress.
With America, there was the french.
With the french, there was the british/dutch/American.
With Mexico, there was an American influence.
Chances are, some rich/powerful person pushed these events forward.
This is why there wasn't a "black" revolution the Black Panthers so proudly speak of.
There we go with that big government, centrally planned, the elites know-it-all mentality that caused the destruction and poverty of the last 100 years.
Why the hell should there be a national economic policy? To me, that very concept is asinine.
Instead of people and communities handling their own business, you always have some corporation or government bureaucrat talking about they know better.
How is one man going to tell another how to live his life, when he won't accept any NEGATIVE consequences of those actions?
Corporations and government bureaucrats always run to the courts so they don't have to take responsibility for their actions... yet they want full rights.
That is the basic stupidity of the American system. It has always been that way. It is just that now, too many are trying to leech the system, and not enough are producing. The politicians, the "wealthy" elites, the corporations, and the governments are becoming way too top-heavy, just like the European societies of old (and even today).
It cannot last.
National economic policy... what a joke.
The basic problem is this corporate American model of limited liability. That is the great flaw in the economic system of this country.
You have either the Democrats promoting limited liability big government or the Republicans promoting limited liability big corporations.
Either way, the individual wealth creator loses.
Neither corporations nor governments create wealth. It is the individual. Unfortunately, the individual can never protect his wealth because the courts do not protect individuals.
And, of course, the whole system was created this way to deprive rights to non-whites It is white supremacy that is driving this whole thing. That is the difference between the European model (built to maintain the monarchy) and the American model (built to maintain white supremacy).
1. Lets get off race. If what you say is true, lets not use that excuse for us underachieving as a race/culture. In fact, lets stop making excuses altogether.
2. Now I'll agree that the courts play a big part of this, however, private corporations started somewhere. They had to beat the system to be where they're at. So, lets stop with that excuse.
3. Monarchy is one system that was universally accepted in both eastern, and western civilization in the past. The American model was built to establish a balance between the power structure, and the common man. Face it, no matter what you think of our government, we do have the best system to achieve in. If it wasn't true, we would be somewhere else. Of course, I'm assuming that you do stay in the United States...
Not true at all. We just would like to see the capitalist beast restrained more using the socialist beast. So far in this decade, it's been very one sided.
Still waiting (for months now) for a workable alternative. Just like in school, you have to show me how it would work or you're just filibustering.
A national economic policy is needed because a system of 50 plus little fiefdoms would be completely unsustainable. Clearly each locale would have it's own laws and regulations (that's what city, county, and state governments are for) but there should be a larger, overrarching set of laws for them to work by. Where there are differences, that's where the courts and the US Constitution come into play. You might not like the system and it's flaws (since man is flawed anything he creates will be moreso) but you haven't given me a real alternative.
I think you're misunderstanding my view of 'trickle down econ' but all $$$ is centralized at the top & the people who benefit are those who use the $$$ first. And I do challenge the theory. Money/Wealth creation cannot be held in the hands of a few oligarchs. It must be decentralized
One way to de-centralize this power is to introduce competing currencies such as gold & silver. Let the 'free market' work!
what differentiates our thinking is The Socialist would argue the concentration of wealth at the top is a product of the 'free market' where I would argue that it's the result of our monetary policy
Last edited:
Lamarr I have to give it to you. We may disagree on the war, but you hit it on the nail about the monetary policies.
And, I've been waiting for months for you to counter the examples I have already given.
Everytime I give you an example of a system that works in anarchy, you come up with some lame excuse for why it's not good enough for you.
For instance, the Ottoman Empire used a sound money. No massive government bureaucracy, no huge military, no intrusive welfare programs. No government dictating how to raise children, what to eat, what to believe, creating fictional enemies, subsidizing big business, with a myriad of taxes on income, home, and personal property.
And, it lasted 1000 years because government knew its place. Keep the peace. That is all.
The Greeks used a sound money for hundreds of years. In fact, it lasted so long, the Romans ended up using it. But, the Romans tried to debase the money which is one reason they collapsed. The Romans had the American model of government which is telling everyone how to live, a huge military, and massive bureaucracy. Look how that worked out for them.
The Chinese lasted for thousands of years with sound money. They realized bureaucracy, military, and bullying the people does not work.
So, explain to me again how the United States model is so superior and wonderful when it can't even go 10 years without yet another depression, recession, contraction, or collapse, starting another war, or adding a new law telling people how to live their lives.
You say it's the best because you don't want to see anything better.