jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (203 posts)

Trickle Down Economics doesn't work

  1. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    With the income gap between the wealthiest American's and the soon to be decimated middle or working class ever increasing. How much more proof do you need that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't creating jobs or supplying wages that are holding their own against inflation.
    http://www.thestreet.com/story/11195216 … l-wet.html
    http://openeconomicsnd.files.wordpress. … e-down.jpg
    http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
    http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12841

    1. GNelson profile image85
      GNelsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Dosn't work is an understatement.  It puts the money in the hands of people who don't spend it.  Can't have consumers without money and jobs.  Ten years since the Bush tax cuts and we have the highest unemployment since the great depression and the wealthy are more wealthy then they were before the tax cuts.  You got to love people who believe in fairy tales.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But it's all Obama's fault smile

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Spending money isn't the goal of the economy. In fact, there's no such thing as "the economy". GDP is a meaningless statistic created to justify government spending.

        Saving money is much more important that spending it. You can't eat a lunch unless you save enough turkey, bread, mayo, and lettuce AND TIME to make AND EAT the thing.

        Keynes was wrong.

        These videos are awesome and explain the competing theories: the Austrians vs. the Kenyesians. You have to listen carefully and reflect on what they say to get the most out of it:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzm … ure=relmfu
        (my comment on this one is the highest rank atm, i'm proud!)

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Utter tosh! try saving your money and spending it on lunch, it doesn't work.

          If you forgo lunch in order to save your money the providers of turkey, mayo and lettuce don't get paid.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ... you do realize that your argument was ludicrous.

            If you save money, then you'll be able to spend the saved money to feed yourself -- saving money is a good thing.

            And, if you choose to save money instead of buying turkey mayo and lettuce, then you can save that money up to spend on a bigger purchase -- buying a home costs quite a bit. It's called "building capital".

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Right, imagine if everybody saves every penny they earn and doesn't spend a single one, how long will the country last?

              To build capital you need spare income, that means that after you've provided everything that you need, you have money left over.

              Think, if everybody, just for one week, stopped buying turkey, mayo and lettuce sandwiches. . .

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You do realize that what you're saying is ridiculous, right?

                Saving isn't bad, but people don't value saving over eating food.

                ... yeah...

                Spending and Saving are balanced by subjective valuation.

        2. bgamall profile image86
          bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Evan a great Republican president says you are a fringie. Here is a response I made to Walt in the comment section of an article I just published yesterday.

          "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

          President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952-----

          http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b … _quote.htm

          Walt, you have no clue how fringe wacko you are. You are abhorred by a great American president. He was well aware of the John Birchers.For him this new manifestation of Birchers, the Tea Party, is a fringe organization.



          Evan I wrote the article that spawned these comments at BI showing that Walt didn't have to be a Ron Paul loving libertarian wacko to hate the behavior of the Fed. It has an important chart I want you to see. I am posting the chart here in case you can't make it over to read the article, although I hope you do. I write as Gary Anderson there. Anyway here is the chart:



          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5305139_f248.jpg

          The chart explains that Fannie and Freddie were involved in the start of the housing bubble but that the main event was the private mbs by the unregulated shadow bank lending and investment bank securitization. This of course makes Faux News a liar in that they focused on the CRA sideshow and totally left their viewers in the dark about the main event, the unregulated part!

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ZOMG a Republican disagrees with me? I better renege everything that makes sense!

            And further more, it's disgusting that people who love liberty are considered Whackos in our society.

            Fannie and Freddie were GSEs - GOVERNMENT sponsored entities, thus not a part of the free market. They received fantastic tax privileges and promises that the government would bail them out in a pinch. Thus they were able to take horrendous risk, and also dominate the market of loanable funds.

            Because of these insane and artificially (and obviously highly dangerous) promises and incentives, they had went nuts buying mortgages no matter how risky the mortgages were -- after all, if they bought the risky mortgages and the people paid, they win; if the people didn't pay, they'd get bailed out.

            -- are you starting to see "government created moral hazard" yet? If not, I'll continue!!! ---

            In fact Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd wrote to the employees "get aggressive on risk taking, or get out of the company".

            Fannie and Freddie also spent millions lobbying Congress.

            AND!! The executives of the companies were caught cooking the books in 2004 in order to justify huge CEO bonuses... yet no one went to jail.

            --- do you see the connection between government promises and the housing collapse yet? If not... I'LL CONTINUE ---

            Because of the government promises of a bailout and tax bonuses, the two companies were encouraged to idiotically only have $83B in capital to cover $5 Trillion in liabilities -- a 60 to 1 ratio.

            But, despite such a horrible leveraging (60-1), TREASURE SECRETARY HANK PAULSON said "their regulator has made clear that they are adequately capitalized" in July 2008.

            NOW - let's talk about "DEREGULATION!!" and how it DID NOT cause the housing collapse.

            There were only 3 possible deregulating pieces of legislation that could have had an impact on the housing crisis:

            Regulation Q: repealed by Jimmy Carter... obviously not the culprit

            Riegle-Neal Interstate banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994: repealed restrictions on interstate branch banking. This made portfolio diversification easier, and hence would have strengthened the housing market instead of weakening it. NOT THE CULPRIT

            and finally:
            Bank holding companies were allowed to underwrite corporate securities. ... not really pertinent to the collapse.

            ... so unless you can show me which piece of deregulating legislation led to the collapse -- AND SHOW ME THE CAUSE AND EFFECT -- I'm going to have to ask you to shut up about this collapse having ANYTHING to do with A) the free market, or B) deregulation.

            The culprit was/is clearly government and the moral hazard created by printing money out of thin air and bailouts.

            1. thebrucebeat profile image61
              thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are deliberately ignoring Phil Gramm and his influence on the economic state of our union.
              You are well informed enough that that can only be deliberate.

              1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this
              2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Alright: let's take on the Glass-Steagall Act. It's easy to debunk.

                The Glass Steagall Act consisted of four basic provisions:

                1) "Banks can't be securities speculators": It prohibited banks from underwriting or dealing in securities, apart from essentially riskless government-issued or government-backed securities. This meant that banks couldn't buy things like bonds and stocks for the sole purpose of selling them (they couldn't be speculators).

                2)Securities firms couldn't take deposits

                3-4) nothing exciting. The banks couldn't be allowed to be affiliated with securities-speculators.

                The Legislation you're discussing is "Gramm-Leach-Blily".

                This legislation simply made 3-4) LEGAL again.

                Was this what caused the collapse? 3-4? No of course not. The banking activity that collapsed "the economy" was activity that was LEGAL BEFORE THE LEGISLATION WAS PASSED.

                ... anything else you want me to tear apart? Because, so far, the blame is still on government for encouraging reckless behavior through bailout-promises.

                Once again, deregulation was not the culprit. -- I WILL admit that I should have included the Gramm bill, but it also wasn't instrumental to the collapse. And even if I did include it in my OP in this thread, the tally would simply be 4 acts of deregulation that had no logical impact on the collapse.

                0-3 or 0-4... which record would you guys prefer?

                1. bgamall profile image86
                  bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Gramm and Clinton both understood that deregulation would allow banks to write swaps on the crap loans they were writing. Without the ability of banks to write swaps, which Brooksley Borne tried to stop, this would never have happened. There would have been no major bubble.

                  The blame comes from Basel 2 who allowed off balance sheet banking. You should read my first articles at BI Evan. Basel 2 allowed banks to hide bad loans and package them into CDO's that were priced wrong. They were priced wrong because the banks used a bogus bell curve that showed them the likelihood of default was small. But that was not true. The liklihood of default was high. Japan defaulted on RE. Worldcom defaulted on off balance sheet accounting. So did Enron. Yet the bankers pressed ahead and pushed Fannie and Freddie out of the way and went wild. So wild that a homeless guy in Florida owned 4 properties no money down. All so the banksters could make money on the Fees Evan.

                  This is a crime from a place much higher than Fannie and Freddie, much higher.

                  1. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Here you are Mostly correct. But your twisting the blame! you said it in your first statement then twisted the end. It was all because they allowed it to happen!

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Your argument COMPLETELY ignores why bad loans were being sought after.

                    Money was injected into the system by the federal reserve and the government.

                    This was a classic Austrian Business Cycle.

                2. thebrucebeat profile image61
                  thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That was a truly irresponsible post, cutting what didn't fit your agenda.
                  http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/ … -steagall/
                  This is just one of dozens of sites that will give the interested reader a more complete and less edited version of the repeal of Glass-Steagall.  It was not the benign legislation you characterize it as.
                  Very disappointed in this post of yours.

                  1. bgamall profile image86
                    bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well said. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was one of the greatest attacks on mainstreet ever done by the elites. It was shameful and it was wicked.

                    Bruce that is a great article. Great. Evan should read it very carefully.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, this is nonsense. The article you posted agrees with me, it just changed the wording to make it sound more like the legislation was the problem.

                    “The market and appetite for derivatives would then have been far smaller, and Washington might not have felt a need to rescue the institutional victims.”   

                    -- Why did the market have such an appetite for the derivatives? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION I DISCUSSED EARLIER!!

                    -- And, they knew they were going to be bailed out.

                    Sorry, but the NY Times actually agrees with me, they just don't understand it. (PS - this is the newspaper that still let's Paul Krugman write for them... ewww...)

                    The problem was that the entire market knew that the companies would be bailed out.

                    Sorry, I'm sick of your left-wing nonsense: I do NOT get my news from Fox; i'm NOT a Republican; and the repeal of "letting banks invest their money in various forms in order to increase portfolio diversity" did NOT cause the bust.

                    "Hey, you know how countless companies do the same thing? Well, if banks did it, then the world will come undone" -- that's ACTUALLY what you're arguing. This is nonsense.

                    The real problem is that everyone knew that these companies were "too big to fail" (translation, they had the Ds and Rs in their pockets). The problem was government, not a lack of it.

            2. bgamall profile image86
              bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Fannie and Freddie were just a sideshow. The chart proves it. Faux has LIED to you Evan.

              1. DannyMaio profile image60
                DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sad you truly have no clue!
                The was the main reason for the collapse! I can show a chart to debunk your chart...So? If you actually look up Fannie and Freddie you will see where it started then got out of control! and YES it was the dems pressuring the banks to give people loans unless get fined for discrimination! You can hear Frank and Dodds in their own words but of course you will just say Fox lies! , Please show where they admitted in court they lied! I will be waiting

                1. bgamall profile image86
                  bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry Danny, that is the Fed's own chart. You have it wrong. Fox lied and the chart proves it. Fannie and Freddie, as the House of Cards also agrees, was pushed to the side in mid 2003 and the shadow banks took over. The flow of funds chart does not lie. Whatever chart you have is subservient to the flow of funds chart. You need to be reprogrammed because you have been massively brainwashed Danny.

                  1. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You need to be reprogrammed. As I stated if the mostly democratic house and senate, lead by Frank and Dodds didn't start this mess it would not have gotten out of control! simple fact! go to Youtube and plug it in and listen straight from the horses mouth. I would like you to deny and twist their words.

                  2. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this
              2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Her Der, I don't watch fox. I only have a TV because I got it free with my new mattress. I use it to watch DVDs comfortably.

                (Beauty and the Beast is still a good movie!)

                PS - the article posted by your friend thebrucebeat pretty much agreed with me - the real problem was that the companies knew they would be bailed out.

          2. Jonathan Janco profile image82
            Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Fox News is a fictional network. They admitted it in court and the judge upheld their right to lie to their viewers. It's an eight year old story and when the judgement was made no news org would touch it. And conservatives were simply further encouraged to tell their lies about 'liberal, activist judges'.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I would love to know the court decision, or some sort of reference to this decision. -- Not saying you're inaccurate, but I'm just curious.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

                This will give you the full story.  It isn't as black and white as it is often portrayed, but it is still a terrible condemnation of the news practices followed by the company.

                It's sickening, but not technically a law suit to defend their right to lie, although the result of it protected just that.

                1. bgamall profile image86
                  bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The the owner, Rupert Murdoch hacks into the cell phones of 911 victims? Shame on Rupert and Fox for taking his marching orders!

                  1. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I guess you didn't read the whole thing. Your twisting! go back and read it again. also please show some facts.

        3. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this



          You have got this wrong - the saying is -

          "life is a sh!t sandwich - the more bread you got, the less sh!t you have to eat"

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Or, you have to eat a lot of sh!t to get a bit of bread.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              This reminds me of "Monty Python and The Holy Grail." 

              - He must be a king.  He is the only one without s**t all over him.

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The liberal idea of "trickle down" is based on misconceptions of how taxation and tax revenue works.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

      http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

      One thing we do know - government spending affects changes in the composition of the employment market and the spending and hiring actions of the private sector.

      http://mercatus.org/publication/does-go … conomies-0

      http://mercatus.org/publication/does-go … mic-growth

      During the heralded days of Bill Clinton unemployment was low, the budget was "balanced", portions of the national debt were paid off and there was a surplus(at least according to partisans).

      Also, government spending in relation to GDP declined for the longest period since the end of WWII.

      We are driving that spending back toward war levels and what is the consequence?  Is it the increased rate of government spending that is drying up the resources otherwise available for middle income Americans?

      http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_ … chart.html

      The cost of poor economics education among Americans is astronomical.  The conflict is always cast in the form of envy, greed, sloth, avarice, gluttony and the end result is the economy continues to suffer in the hands of amateurs and punishes those who freely choose to be ignorant.  The religion of liberalism has been the ruination of the American economy and will continue until economic liberty becomes as important and sexual liberty.

      http://www.investopedia.com/university/ … s/quiz.asp

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The laffer curve doesn't work in a credit crisis. Hoover had trickle down. It was called percolation and the man was banished from politics forever for believing in it.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You're standing up for the Laffer Curve?

          you are aware that Art Laffer, the individual who invented the curve, not only failed to predict the bust, but also laughed at those who DID predict it, right?

          In fact, Art Laffer owes the Austrian Economist Peter Schiff a symbolic penny. Laffer refuses to pay up because he's a wretched low-life scum bag.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

          "I'll bet you a lot more than a penny!"

          Here's him weaseling out of it:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYkFYdLTTw8

          1. S Leretseh profile image80
            S Leretsehposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Economists and their fuzzy little formulas can be down right dangerous.  Remember this little $4.5 billion  Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton fiasco?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_ … Management

  2. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Welcome to the new world order - this is how the whole world is going - heading on back to virtual slavery.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I know this, it is effecting me,I want to fight back

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The only ways to fight back are to refuse to take out too many loans, cut your driving, don't bid for something that costs too much and teach your friends and children to do all the above;

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What does "cutting your driving" have to do with "the federal reserve printing trillions of dollars out of thin air"?

          If you truly want to fight back at the SOURCE of the problem, then buy Gold and Silver coins, and begin using them as currency. Screw the laws, and put true money back in it's rightful place.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image61
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And who will be the merchants that will accept that currency?

            Rhetoric.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Man, I wish that I could deny logic by simply not thinking the way that you do. That'd be grand.

              If YOU decide to buy gold and silver, then surely YOU would accept gold and silver as currency.

              Right now, doing so is against the law.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If not thinking means deciding to not change to a currency that is not usable in our economy, I guess you're right.

                Take your bullion and go to 7-11 for a Big Gulp and see if you leave thirsty.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So you agree, the fact that using gold and silver as money is illegal prevents the population from changing currencies?

                  You agree that fiat money is foolish?

                  Glad we're on the same page.

                  (PS - if I went to a seven eleven and gave the clerk a gold ounce for a smoothie, the guy would take it and run out of the store.)

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, making things illegal usually discourages the public from doing them.
                    I suppose I can agree with that innocuous statement.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you want to fight back, buy silver and gold.

  3. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Until the Faux News Network says it, no one on the right will believe it or admit it.

  4. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    those with money get the laws passed in their favor...
    as my father always told us growing up."money talks and s*it walks"..sad but true..
    money is power and those without it have no say

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm still rather fond of the Dylan line that says
      "Money doesn't talk, it swears"

      1. Richieb799 profile image62
        Richieb799posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Can never fault a bit of Dylan

    2. Richieb799 profile image62
      Richieb799posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I've never heard that one before, 'Money talks, s**t walks' smile plenty of that around. People that have more money than sense.

  5. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    I believe money trickles up not down.
    One old established company in America has only lost money one year in the last 100. They guarantee employment, overpay and profit share!

    I know first hand that in the many businesses I have owned run or managed my employees were well paid, happy and motivated.
    You are not going to get peoples best by robbing them blind while paying shareholders 14%.

    I believe underpaying is yet another form of stupid short term profit thinking, which is what caused the financial meltdown in the first place!

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.  When a large corporation pays a semi-reasonable salary to top executives but then adds 10 times that figure in stock options that are valuable only if the stock market rises that year it becomes inevitable that short term profits will take precedence over long term viability.

      American companies, at least, have become enamored of such short term gains and it is costing them dearly in the long run.  Employees become little more than cogs in a money making machine, to be used up and thrown away as necessary to maintain a large one year profit and make the stock price go up.  The long term result is that those companies can no longer compete with companies that value their employees enough to keep them and their expertise.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The impetus behind offering stock options was a law that forced a cap on direct compensation for executives at $1 million. Like most changes in the economy it is a direct response to changes in broader conditions.  The government interference in the economy is such a change.  Time and again, we have seen business twist and turn, contorting to fit the new rules forced upon it by the over weening, over reaching state.


        http://taxhistory.tax.org/thp/readings. … enDocument

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, corporations twist and turn in an effort to bypass misguided and stupid legislation from our leaders.

          And, as usual, those misguided laws attempting control of something that isn't their business to control end up causing havoc to the country.  So what else is new?

      2. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Looking in from the outside at American business is an eye opener.

        I watch all the US car workshop shows.

        The way the bosses in these shows speak to their employees on the workshop floor would see them going broke, looking for a new job or nursing a sore jaw in Australia.

        The levels of arrogance are mind boggling to me.

        Talking down to people like that here would mean having no workers........they would walk.

        1. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Walk over here and you may not find another job for quite a while,no matter how good you are.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yep! I get that.

            What I don't get is the short sighted view of many employers or why they feel they have the right to talk to people they employ like they are dirt simply because of a job shortage. smile

            1. DannyMaio profile image60
              DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well this is America and you do not have to take the job if the owner is a dI@k. He will lose in the long run. I have not seen many people actually complain about this. sure you have an a$$hole owner here and there but most owners just pay what they can and you take it if you want. If you want more jobs then you need to tell the dems to stop taxing and making business hard on companies and they will not leave! it is very simple.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No Danny, it's you that is very simple.

                1. DannyMaio profile image60
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes Simple and not looking for entitlements! You can spew your nonsense all you want. The American people woke up last election and the same will happen. Talk to me after the election.

                  I guess this isn't America and you are forced to work where you do not want to. Funny!

    2. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "I know first hand that in the many businesses I have owned run or managed my employees were well paid, happy and motivated."

      The many businesses?

      Couldn't keep them running?

      Sad.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What a stupid ignorant statement!

        I have had a terrific run in business since I was 23 and often had several running at once under management.

        I just happen to enjoy business. Sorry, no failures to report. smile

        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't be ashamed, not everyone can run successful businesses.

          I believe you...wink

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well you should although I know you want proof!

            I live in a large city on almost 4 million, and I am well known in Melbourne and can prove up what I have stated.

            One of my businesses was begun when I was a kid in 1968 and it is  in a prime position on one of our busiest highways and still going like a rocket.
            The current address is Nepean Highway Moorabin.

            Look it up if you like, the business is called "Bikes and Bits"
            It changed the face of motorcycle shops in my city forever.
            We were the benchmark for customer service in the industry for over 23 years.

            I have owned most of the decent motorcycle businesses in this town. Designed my own restaurant, ran an international consultancy, gave my first speech to SWAP on how to run a successful business when I was 24.
            I worked bloody hard for my success, and am not going to cop this sort of ill informed crap.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image59
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "and am not going to cop this sort of ill informed crap."

              What?

              By the way, I am very impressed.

              Did you close all the businesses to write for pennies full time?

  6. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    I have this debate with friends and business owners often about paying a living wage and unions. The business owners insist that trickle down economics works and benefits all.They insist unions and higher minimum wages hurts growth. I say that the lower wages and benefits people earn will put businesses out of business since their customer base will have less and less to spend.Who do they think will buy their products?the average family has less income and wages so they can't spend like they used to.
    why cant they see this?

  7. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Well said earnest, If we could just get our idiots in the District of Criminals to pay attention, we might have a chance of pulling out of this mess. Of course it would help if they actually wanted to fix the problems we face.

  8. thebrucebeat profile image61
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    I have a Hub about class warfare that discusses this.  Since Reagan hit the scene, the wealthy of this country have been on an unprecedented roll.  Taxes and incentives have gone their way, de-regulation has gained traction and benefitted the owner class, and their incomes have skyrocketed, while the working class has stagnated, not keeping up with inflation and actually losing wealth.
    The lowering of the tax rates on the wealthy has not achieved any trickle  down effect.  This is not debatable, but rather is very easily quantifiable.
    If this is not recognized and reversed,  we will cannabilize ourselves into global irrelevance or global violence.
    And the working man will volunteer to die on the front lines.  It will be the only place to get a paying job.  We are already seeing this now.

  9. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    What really got me is that we are having the ongoing talks about raising the debt ceiling and we have the amount of tax payer holding the bag for corporate welfare and subsidies.So the whole idea of if we let the corporations hold on to more money they will create jobs, where are they? We deregulated the financial sector and they screwed the world economy then the Fed bailed them out and we pay for it,where are the arrests? Ratings agencies rated that junk  triple A and we're worried about what they rate America? Those involved shouldn't even exist any more for that debacle, credibility 0. They want to cut social security,medicare and medicaid before govt handouts to millionaires and billionaires,you must be kidding?

  10. S Leretseh profile image80
    S Leretsehposted 5 years ago

    Trickle down is part of supply-side economics under Reagan (at least I can find no mention of it prior to reagan).  According to David Stockman (book: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed), he stated that there never was any real understanding of it - by anyone, including him.  He was employed basically to make “Reaganomics” sound good. Had the DEMS agreed to Reagan's balanced budget demand, America could hv got it's economic house in order in 1982. But the DEMS knew darn well that their cradle-to-grave socialism couldn't survive without running huge deficits. The envious ones in this thread, who so despise those who have earned their wealth and are enjoying their right to keep what they earn, need to put the blame for the wealth gap squarely where it belongs - the Democratic Party.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, I'm not really complaining about the wealth part,what bothers me is how this approach screwed up opportunity for the rest of the people of America and how that wealth effectively bought our government.   Where are the jobs that are promised with this approach?

      1. S Leretseh profile image80
        S Leretsehposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Where are the jobs that are promised with this approach?"

        The biggest difference between a republican and a democrat - IMO - is that the DEMS see the gov't as the economic engine of a political system (ie. Socialism).  The republicans believe that economic opportunities are created by the people (not the gov't), and that the gov‘t should only supply superficial regulations for the good of the country.  The DEMS socialist scheme has ruined what was once a great county. Mr. slave, go out there and find your own opportunities.  Gov't doesn't owe you this!

        1. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I have a job and I am not looking for a hand out .Our economy is in the toilet,or because it may not be for everything is good ,right? Trickle down doesn't know right or left ,only have or have not. Crawl out from the rock you're under.

        2. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Then how come Boner and crew blamed Obama for the unemployment rate?
          All that "vote for us, and we'll get jobs"...what was that?

          And how come you people say "Tax cuts create jobs", and it never happens?

          What are we listening to....lies, distortions or propaganda?

          It's policies that either are job-friendly/people friendly/humanity-oriented or not. That is what gvt does--makes polices.
          And under Repubs, all it does is make policies that favor the Uber wealthy class...sorry, that's proven history.

          Why OH WHY, are we back here AGAIN????

        3. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your rhetoric misrepresents the position of democrats on business as the source of jobs or the engine of the national economy.

          Liberals believe that business, government and the economy exist to serve the needs of the people. Its the function of government to keep free markets free by breaking monopolies and protecting consumers from predatory practices.

          Robust regulation and vigorous enforcement send chills up the spines of CEOs who will pollute the environment,  strip away workers rights, and legislate away liability for what they do.

          1. S Leretseh profile image80
            S Leretsehposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hughes, the RESULTS of the DEMs employ, tax and regulate fits by description.  People who create businesses (wealth and a tax base), left the US. Your Democratic Party is to blame.  6 to10 million jobs (who know the real staggering number)  hv left this country over just the last 20 years. Have the DEMS ever tried to prevent business flight to foreign countries? I can't think of any instance.  Give businesses the incentive to stay (i.e. lower taxes and limit regulations). opportunities (jobs) will return to the US.  Oh, and install a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Enough of ripping off the future generations.  Still a chance to save america...but time is running out.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image59
              Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Wall Street is sitting on two TRILLION that they are not investing in growth and jobs.

              Your suggestion that the people who have wealth and create jobs have left the country is pure right-wing fiction.

              1. S Leretseh profile image80
                S Leretsehposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "Wall Street is sitting on two TRILLION that they are not investing in growth and jobs"

                Invest in what sir? People (wealth producers) don't want to do business any longer in the US. Why? DEMS taxes,rules and regulations! I've got money to invest in business. But I want nothing to do with employees.  Maybe a get in and get out quick scenario I'd take. But nothing long term.  I want nothing to do with your political party’s taxes, rules and regulations. Among the none envious ones, I think my attitude is pervasive.

                "Your suggestion that the people who have wealth and create jobs have left the country is pure right-wing fiction."

                Sure about that mr. Hughes? You ought to visit the port of LA. Cargo ships as far as the eyes can see.  Those sir, represent lost manufacturing jobs. Then there's the outsourcing. Ever heard of that? Very big (billion dollar big!) business.

                1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                  Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So what you are saying is that if you can pay third word wages and pour benzene straight into the ground your OK?

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    If you have a court system that refuses to enforce property rights SO HORRIBLY that they allow people to pour poisons chemicals onto other people's property, then...

                    ... no that's still illegal. It's just that the jerk-nugget court system needs to be changed.

                    (PS - our government court system allows WAY too much pollution compared to a privatized system).

  11. DonDWest profile image91
    DonDWestposted 5 years ago

    The reason why supply side economics doesn't work is because in order for any theory to work, it has to be universal. I agree with the Austrians that people need to save, invest, and the government needs to keep out. I agree that the GDP is a horrible economic measure and that rampant consumption in and of itself doesn't build a great economy.

    However, this saving and building capita way of life must apply to everyone, not just the currently rich. Supply side economics put the rich in a "Godly" like position where we all must depend on them for jobs, jobs, jobs. If the rich don't feel like supplying the jobs or want to supply them overseas, we're so out of luck.

    A far superior model is people actually get paid well enough to leave aside a decent amount of cash that they can save up to one day build businesses of their own. This encourages independance and less dependance on some sort of overlord class.

    The difference between the people depending on a big government to live (socialism) or depending on a select few of feudal lords (Reagonics) matters little. . .

    1. DonDWest profile image91
      DonDWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Also, what many must consider, is that to a lot of people, a job isn't a blessing on Earth, but a means to an end. Many of us hope to one day "enterprise" our way out of work, but ruthless supply side economics prevents that by squeezing all the time, energy and resources out of those found at the very bottom. It's hard to generate the savings and plant a seed if you're struggling to feed yourself. You could have the best idea and a sharp mind, but it will matter not in such an environment. . .

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, Money is a means to function,it's not that I have a bad job but  everything rising in price (inflation / except for my paycheck).sooner or later someone is not going to get paid right away.Saving impossible

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      For those of you guys out there who are unfamiliar with the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, here's an 8 minute overview of it all:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCmwRN5gjOo

      Oh, and for those unfamiliar with the notion that, yes, economists disagree and that there are multiple schools of economics, here's a few quotes that should probably help you pick which school is right for you:

      Keynes (Trickle down / Keynesian / Modern economics):
      "In the long run, we're all dead"

      "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slave to some defunct economist."

      Hayek (the Austrian School):
      "The curious task of economists is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design."

      Here's a fun illustration of the different schools:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The "Boom or Bust" video was awesome! 

        The notion that economies are machines and can be geared to what ever speed or disposition one chooses from a mathematical formula is a dangerous one that has resulted in the problems we are facing right now.

        The liquidity trap that Keynes feared exists now with banks and businesses holding aproximately $2 trillion in cash.  It is the very Animal Spirits that Keynes seeks to name then ignore that govern how well an economy works.  Obama's hostility toward business has trapped those very Animal Spirits, the ones Hayek and Von Mises understood must be truly free if an economy is to remain strong, responsive and prosperous.

        The argument between Keynes and Hayek has played itself in other social sciences.  The idea that human behavior can be quantified as one would a physics experiment is foolish.

        Trickle down - the stupid name latched on to by those who do not understand economics - is real and does work.  We are currently living in an economy in which the trickle has been dried up - intentionally - by an amateur who believes what his grand mother told him every minute of every day -"Barry you are so pretty and smart and every body loves you."

        Our economy is in ruins because Barrack Hussein Obama is still being told every minute of every day that he is the smartest, prettiest, most beloved president ever.

  12. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    YES! I think they are waiting for the Baggers to bust up the unions, remove all regulations and job safety measures, and wait until we are begging for jobs, and will take any job at any pay!!

    You know what they say..it's a buyer or a seller's market. They want to hold all the cards, IMO.

  13. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Just to break in here...but what about the reckless behavior??

    Oh, the gvt made me do it??

    Don't blame me.....the gvt had a gun to my head??

    Let me guess...they FORCED the banskters to hide all their money in Swiss accounts too?

    Do the crime...DO THE TIME!

    I did not steal anything.
    Stop TRICKLING down the restitution on me!!!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LMC - if someone gave you $700 billion, would you A) spend it in the most profitable way possible, or B) say "man, it's so wrong to be given $700B, I'll just burn it because I'm a good girl".

      ... obviously, B) would never even enter your mind.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image61
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your point is exactly why "trickle down" never works.  Spending the money on the most profitable paths doesn't lead to spreading that wealth among the working people.  It leads to increasing the bottom line of the "haves".
        Trickle down is a mirage that has never worked and the numbers don't lie.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          A wise petroleum owner was once asked how he becamse a billionaire. He said because I spent wisely, I invested in people. I helped people to make money or even become millionaires.
          He invested in others opening gas stations all over the country, hiring tens of thousands of employees. His charitable donations were many, he believed strongly in giving. Yet he was hated and despised for being rich.
          Funny, he ivested his own money to put people to work, but because he got rich, along with many who worked for him, he was vilianized. Sound familiar? THats what is going on today. People of wealth who took risks and were rewarded for it, employ thousands, give generously, have charitable foundations, but are demonized. What if Bill Gates said oh trckle down never works, the government will take care of me. Where would his tens of thousands of employees be today?
          When did America become a place where every job is to make you wealthy? I only wanted and expected no less than a fair wage to live comfortable. Anything more would require a risk on my part. And when I took it, I employeed hundreds of people. Not just directly working for me, but the contractors I hired who hired employees. So trickle down does work.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image61
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Your story is very touching, yet the economic reality of the country paints an entirely different picture.
            Hyperbole of argument, suggesting that working people are expecting to become wealthy due to trickle down is spurious and childlike.  No one has that expectation.  They simply don't expect to be robbed and betrayed by their own wealthier countrymen.
            But to have their incomes contract, their buying power eroded, their ability to pay for essentials, save for their future, educate their children to continue a growth trend in their family history as well as the countries tragectory, is not what they signed up for.
            Anecdotal stories are delightful, but only useful in argument to support the data of the overall trend, not to suggest that data is inaccurate due to some individual exception.
            Deal with the reality.  The rich are getting very VERY rich, and the rest of us are slip sliding away.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No point in showing you all the CBO and GAO reports showing when true growth occured, when GDP was good, when people were actually employed, what actually spurred growth. You already claim to know. Sorry that Government has wasted so much money on recording unemployment, GDP, Tax revenues and more. We should have just asked you.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Snide, but not evidence.

                Here's evidence.

                http://www.businessinsider.com/15-chart … ica-2010-4

                There are 16 charts at this site that will put the distribution of wealth in our country in perspective.  Trickle down was the greatest scam by the finest bunko men this country has produced.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What a joke, not one government chart in the lot, sorry charts from left wing Professors are useless as Ross Perot charts. None of it based in facts.

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Alley_Insider

                    Here's who they really are.  Founders include a guy who was convicted of fraud as a Wall Street insider.  Real left wing extremists. LOL.

                    Where do you get your knee-jerk reactions?  You don't show any contradicting evidence in regard to any of the charts or information, you simply ignorantly attack the source with no back up to support that attack either.

                    What a hopeless post.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I know, I'm against trickle down economics. It's an idiotic policy.

          Trickle down economics is a direct symptom of the Federal Reserve's "hey let's give companies across the world trillions of dollars we just printed out of thin air" policies.

          If you're against trickle down economics, demand a gold standard.

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Where are you at. One post you are for it, the next you are against it Unless I misunderstood your other post

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not to be a jerk, but you probably did mis-understand the post.

              I'm not for trickle down economics in anyway shape or form. Printing money out of thin air, stealing money from the public, and then giving the ill-gotten money to politically connected jerkwads is a horrible idea.

              *Actually, re-reading what I wrote, my post is kind of confusing if not taken in context.

              I said, basically, that if people give you a lot of money, you'll spend it without caring.

              LMC was acting like the businesses should be blamed for their spending the money.

              I, on the other hand, was blaming the government for handing the money out.

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks Even, you were not being a jerk. I did misunderstand, that was mainly why I asked. Take care

  14. Brett Milam profile image61
    Brett Milamposted 5 years ago

    Trickle-down economics is indeed a silly economic philosophy. On the other hand, capitalism is certainly not trickle-down economics or any notion of Reaganomics. The problems in the United States today stems from corporatism, not capitalism, but confusing the two concepts as being synonymous has helped fester misconceptions about the free market.

  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I want to know--WHO are they formulating our policy for?

    What and who are we paying taxes for?

    Cause, it hasn't been US since 2000. IMO

    WE sunk. Who have we kept afloat?

  16. thaivalentine profile image60
    thaivalentineposted 5 years ago

    I am not sure how I feel about trickle down economics, yet I will say this - the US economy is down because everything is being produced outside the US now.  This is also why there are fewer and fewer jobs. 

    I do think the people with "the money", are afraid of the economic climate now so they are not investing.  As a result, there are ever fewer jobs being created.  The sad truth is that the "little guy" does not create jobs, its the guy with the money.  If they are getting taxed or regulated more and more, then they spend less and less.

    1. DonDWest profile image91
      DonDWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And the fact of the matter is cutting their taxes still won't stop them from investing overseas. Insanity is the definition of doing the same thing over and over again and it still not working. Supply economics hasn't worked for thirty years running. The supply side economics philosophy is what enabled them to outsource overseas in the first place.

      You want a solution? You can start by seeing yourself as more than a "little guy" at the mercy to some rich overlord class who needs to take care of you. Change in attitudes can make a big difference.

    2. DonDWest profile image91
      DonDWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The truth of the matter is: THEY DEPEND ON US!

      We feed them, we protect them, we cloth them, we take out their trash, we power their mansions, etc. The rich are lazy and can't even lift their own fingers to pick up after themselves. How is that for a change in perspective?

      Do we truly need a rich overlord class to survive? The sooner the illusionary power breaks, the better.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Many of the "big guys" used to be "little guys".

      If you look at the riches people in the world, the names change frequently.

    4. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely right.  What we have witnessed over the last two years is a President who uses his pulpit to brow beat and degrade businesses and business owners.  We have seen a monumental expansion of business regulation.  We have seen the government reach into entire industries and compel their submission. 

      The result, businesses are hunkering down, protecting what they have and risking as little as possible.  It is fear that Barry has inspired in the job creators and then he wonders where the jobs are.

      It is trickle down poverty.  He has pushed his policies for over two years and what is the result?  The only thing that keeps our economy from being in a "depression" is its resiliency, something long predating Barrack Obama. We are growing at a paltry 1.5% when an economy in a real recovery should be screaming hot.

      If trickle down doesn't work than why was the growth in GDP during the Reagan recovery over 7%??

      1. thebrucebeat profile image61
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Because the 7% didn't trickle down.  It coagulated at the top and never impacted working people.  The wealthy saw their incomes skyrocket and the rest of the country saw their incomes stagnate and in fact reverse in terms of buying power.
        When you are talking "trickle down", you have to show a result where the people in the lower half of the economy are benefitting, and you can't show that, not during Reagan or any time subsequently.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Would you prefer the spastic thrashing about of the current administration or the Reagan Years?

          1. thebrucebeat profile image61
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Quite honestly the Reagan years were the seed of our destruction.  Trickle down began the slide toward a division of wealth in this country that is unsustainable and crippling.  What was your favorite part of Reagan?

            His tax increases?
            Negotiating with Iranian terrorists?
            Cut and run from Beirut?
            Secret weapons deals?
            Wealth redistribution?

            Enough with the whitewash of the Reagan years.  It was class warfare at its most venal, and the slide toward economic armaggedon had begun.

            Tellingly, you didn't respond to the reality mentioned in my post.  You simply avoided it altogether.

            Well done.  When cornered, change the subject.

  17. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    David Leonhardt sums up and moves on. His final economics column is worth reading.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/busin … laise.html

  18. Niteriter profile image79
    Niteriterposted 5 years ago

    It's a great read, Ralph. Leonhardt is certainly more reasonable in his thinking than many of the political leaders I see on TV these days.

  19. dutchman1951 profile image59
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    I do not think in honesty, trickle down ever really worked for all people.

    The Business types remind me of a History account I read about Rockafeller, throwing dimes to people from the back of his limo as he rode past!

    I'd rather start out and make my own, my knees are to stiff to bend and beg for dimes.  We all need to stand in the face of this Congress and Senate, it is time to folks, it is time.

  20. uncorrectedvision profile image59
    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago

    My favorite part of the Reagan legacy is the scramble by the current president to create the notion in the uninformed that he is just like  Ronald Reagan.  My second favorite part is the Dervish whirl liberals get in when R.R's name is mentioned.  The entertainment value of the Reagan legacy is priceless.

    1. thebrucebeat profile image61
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Also unresponsive to the issues.

      Open a thread about Reagan.  You may learn something.  As for trickle down, there is no evidence it accomplished what its name implied.

      None.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So amusing.  There are times when it is just so easy.  The Whirl just happens.  The greatest post war period of economic expansion is the legacy of Reagan.

        1. thebrucebeat profile image61
          thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There is a difference between GDP and how it effects the mass of the population.
          The growth went straight to the top, and continues to do so.  To prove trickle down, growth is not enough.  You have to show the growth of the means of the lower and middle classes, and you will not be able to do so.  It hasn't happened.
          This is the second time I've made this point and you have yet to address it.  Let us all know if you decide to do so.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Equally amusing to me is the idea that one can be brow beaten or bullied or cajoled into responding.  I am trying to think of why anyone's opinion that I am not married to or voted for matters to me.  At all, ever. Oh yes, it doesn't.  So I respond to what I want, when I want, how I want and on my terms. 

            I long ago abandoned the idea of arguing toward an end because I couldn't care less if anyone does or does not agree with me about anything.  I use my time and mind as I see fit and that is all.

            Have a good day.  Check out your beloved Realclearpolitics numbers today.  Interesting trend continues.

            1. thebrucebeat profile image61
              thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Why respond to my posts at all, then, if you don't want to address what's in them?  Just post independent of me without replying to me.  Nobody is forcing you to hit "reply" under my name, but if you do, at least make your floundering relevant.

              You have a good day, too!

          2. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living
            GDP can be determined in three ways, all of which should, in principle, give the same result. They are the product (or output) approach, the income approach, and the expenditure approach.
            The most direct of the three is the product approach, which sums the outputs of every class of enterprise to arrive at the total. The expenditure approach works on the principle that all of the product must be bought by somebody, therefore the value of the total product must be equal to people's total expenditures in buying things. The income approach works on the principle that the incomes of the productive factors ("producers," colloquially) must be equal to the value of their product, and determines GDP by finding the sum of all producers' incomes.
            Example: the expenditure method:
            GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or

            Note: "Gross" means that GDP measures production regardless of the various uses to which that production can be put. Production can be used for immediate consumption, for investment in new fixed assets or inventories, or for replacing depreciated fixed assets. "Domestic" means that GDP measures production that takes place within the country's borders. In the expenditure-method equation given above, the exports-minus-imports term is necessary in order to null out expenditures on things not produced in the country (imports) and add in things produced but not sold in the country (exports).
            Economists (since Keynes) have preferred to split the general consumption term into two parts; private consumption, and public sector (or government) spending. Two advantages of dividing total consumption this way in theoretical macroeconomics are:
            •    Private consumption is a central concern of welfare economics. The private investment and trade portions of the economy are ultimately directed (in mainstream economic models) to increases in long-term private consumption.
            •    If separated from endogenous private consumption, government consumption can be treated as exogenous,[citation needed] so that different government spending levels can be considered within a meaningful macroeconomic framework.
            Income approach
            This method measures GDP by adding incomes that firms pay households for the factors of production they hire- wages for labor, interest for capital, rent for land and profits for entrepreneurship.
            The US "National Income and Expenditure Accounts" divide incomes into five categories:
            1.    Wages, salaries, and supplementary labour income
            2.    Corporate profits
            3.    Interest and miscellaneous investment income
            4.    Farmers’ income
            5.    Income from non-farm unincorporated businesses
            These five income components sum to net domestic income at factor cost.
            Two adjustments must be made to get GDP:
            1.    Indirect taxes minus subsidies are added to get from factor cost to market prices.
            2.    Depreciation (or capital consumption) is added to get from net domestic product to gross domestic product.

            1. thebrucebeat profile image61
              thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So if one sector experiences exponential growth and another remains flat, the GDP will suggests overall growth.

              What do you think you have proved?

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                1.    Wages, salaries, and supplementary labour income
                 
                Look at what is part of the GDP. Guess you missed that one

                1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                  thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Part.  That's the point.
                  Wages and salaries include those of the upper income earners as well.
                  Do you think you have made a point?  I can't see it.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I am done, you never will get the point or any point for that matter. Believe what you want.

  21. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Who puts more money back into the economy ? 1 family making 1 million OR 20 families making 50,000? Then maybe out of those 20 families 10 are tradesmen and 4 want to start their own business and need workers. Trickle down is BS.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe we should take all the money and wealth put it in a big pile then divide it up equally then there would be even more "contributed" to society.

      For whom do those 20 families making $50,000 work?  Could it be the one making $1000000?  If so then the one making the million contributes what they are making plus what the others are making by making their jobs possible.

      Why is it so hard for people to accept that government actions distort an economy that would run just fine with a minimum of government involvement.  Perhaps if government would confine its activities to policing force and fraud then there would be more and more gainful employment.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image61
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Check out the state of our economy in the late 1800's to the early 1900's, the period of laissez-faire economic policy from the fed.  That was your free market at work, and it led to violent revolution from the underclass and the beginning of federal regulation on industry.

        It was a grand time for the working man.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Really, that was your example?   I was thinking about the worker's paradise that you would compel upon us.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image61
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Your post doesn't show any knowledge of that period, the laissez-faire policies that created it, or the nightmare it became.  Read my hub about class warfare.  It talks about that period.  That was the free market at work, and it was horrifying.

            Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it, and that is exactly the path we are on.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am quite aware of the turn of the previous century and the conditions found in American cities.  Specifically the conditions in which new immigrants lived and worked.  So we are now living in the past?  What could you find acceptable from the 1890s?  Food purity, water purity?  So you would judge everything in 1890 by the standards of 2011?  Brilliant.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Read the Hub.

                I'm talking about the results of a free market where industry is unregulated and unprincipled.  The current climate is trying to recreate this freedom, and the results are already being felt.

                We can talk about environmental issues elsewhere.

                Why aren't you responding to the issue brought up in my post?

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You believe that there is an increase or a threatened increase in freedom for businesses to ride rough shod over their employees and the public in general.  I find that claim to be fantastic and inconsistent with reality so what can I say.

                  I also find it amazing that one equates a free economy with one bent and twisted by corruption in the government.  Businesses are barred by law from much of the abuses they engaged in over a century ago.  You would put in the hands of regulators authority that should never have been delegated to the administrative branch( a sub set of the Executive as identified by that elitist, racist prig, Woodrow Wilson)

                  Subjecting business to laws created by the Executive is a clear violation of the Constitution but what the hell it is just a piece of paper.  I want a free market not a crazy one.  You want a market regulated by a distant centralized authority - we used to call that communism now we call it liberal.

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Call it what you will.
                    It gives you safer food and water, cleaner air (which the Republicans are trying to undo by eliminating the EPA), protection against monopolistic practices.  It prevents so many kinds of abuses that you simply take for granted, and the proponents of deregulation would love to unwind.
                    The business of business is business, and it has no responsibility for the general welfare.  That is the job of government, and it is stated in the COTUS.  Regulation is  how that welfare is protected.

                  2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    If we had truly free market what would happen to the lobbyists? roll

      2. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Just back up to Uncorrected's reply to me, How did the family making the 1 million get to that point ?  Did it fall out of the sky? Or were they or their parents one of the ones making 50,000 at one point?

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Since most wealth in America is held by first generation millionaires then it is likely they were part of the $50000 club.

          1. Moderndayslave profile image60
            Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So, 20 families  buying food, cars (not German btw) ,homes, insurance, fuel oil.electricity,medical attention,computers,cell phones , clothes ,,,,,,,,you get my point. That millionaire might only have 3 or 4 employees,let the people that will put the money directly back into the local economy get the tax break. Doesn't sleeping on all of that money make your neck hurt?

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently you still don't understand from where does that $50k job emerge from the ether?  From spontaneous generation?  It emerges from the activities of the $1000k.  One creates many jobs.  Those many jobs create more jobs und so weiter.  Without the initial job creation - few people have ever become millionaires sleeping on their money - then the $50k jobs would not exist.  It is simple.

              1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                " It emerges from the activities of the $1000k. "
                What activities? Living better,running a business that still depends on customers.Your argument is flawed at best.
                Nice try,the millionaire is not going to wake up and create a job for someone because they got a tax cut.Jobs will get created because the demand for products and services rises, this will require more workers to meet this demand.Who is purchasing the increased goods and services? The 1 millionaire or the 20 pee-ons? The 20 families. 
                http://novovirtu.com/2010/11/22/the-lie … economics/

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It's a myth that wealth creates jobs, no employer pays wages out of capital.
                  The workers generate the money that pays their wages, the wealthy just take a big slice of that.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What do they do with that money John? Eat it, burn it or circulate it back through an economy?

                2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I just don't understand why liberals hate working people so much that they want to punish them and their employers.  Doesn't the $1000k person work?  Don't they produce a needed product or service?  Don't they create jobs?  When they have more money available don't they spend, save or invest it?  Doesn't business run on available capital from investment, savings and consumption?  Do any of those $50k people make products that are consumed by the $1000k person?  Who is a more efficient allocator of resources the individual who is closest to the market or a distant elite?  Who has the best, most contemporary information on how resources can be most efficiently used?  The business owner, the consumer or the bureaucrat?

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Two points, UV.
                    Companies currently have an enormous amount of available capital that they are sitting on and not investing.  When dividends became non-taxable, companies went crazy offering them and not investing in their companies infrastructure, like human resources, when they could take the short term gain.  No they don't always make good decisions for the greater good.

                    Second, the 50k guy may be someone starting out with their own company, not an employee.  Start up companies often are extremely modest when they begin, and grow into something substantial.  But why do you like to denegrate the 50k'ers?  In every society everywhere throughout history, most people are the worker bees.  The ruling classes have nothing without them.  The only reason they are pooped on is because there are enough of them to make them replaceable.  That is why they mold into collectives.  The abuse of them is always predictable.  One hundred 50k'ers that buy fifty houses create a much bigger firestorm in the economy than one fat cat that buys two or three.  Improvements, mortgages, furniture, growing families and on and on all create a huge impact on the economy.  One wealthy dude who has his needs primarily taken care of with all the trimmings is not moving the economies needle very significantly.  You need those 50k folks, and in big numbers.  They are the engine of growth.

        2. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My point exactly,why give the wealthy another tax cut when the middle class not only needs it more but will put it back into circulation immediately.

  22. thebrucebeat profile image61
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    Goodnight, all.  It's been fun.

  23. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Not taking sides here, but this IS a writers' site.
    If someone's writing is consistently filled with typos and grammatical mistakes it does detract from their message.
    Like it or not, we are judged by our ability to express our thoughts.

    It would not occur to me -- on the natural -- to assume a physical affliction is behind someone's typos.
    Thank you for pointing out that possibility, AV.

    Not sure what my point is here, so I will shut up now. smile

    1. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Don't worry Mighty Mom, not many in this thread are making sense or a point for that matter. lol

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      MM,

      Not a problem. I am just tired of people who think they know it all and are wrong most of the time. Then attack or correct spelling to cover it up or make it look like they are smarter than you.If you look at someones mis-spelling, you may find the letter that is wrong is next to the letter that would have spelled the word right. But then they try to talk down to you. I truly do not like snobs. Back when I was in the FDNY, I always amazed me when a wealthy persons home had a fire. They always yelled at us, threatened to sue if we damaged something. Can you believe it. Their place is burning and they yell at us. I even had one yell as we were entering the dwelling to wipe our feet!!  1/2 their home was in flames, shooting out the windows, but wanted us to wipe out feet. Unreal.

      Maybe I take it to personal, maybe its my frustrations of how things are for me right now. Maybe I should shut up.smile

      I know what you mean about spelling, but is it that important. Read this I found on the internet. I believe you will find it interesting

      i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty
      uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal
      pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a
      rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't
      mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
      olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer
      be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl
      mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.
      Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed
      ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
      Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling
      was ipmorantt! tahts so cool!

      1. thebrucebeat profile image61
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you are referring to me, you have yet to have shown where I have been wrong.
        On the contrary, I have shown you have been mistaken in your evaluation of the source of charts I presented, and I have yet to have seen your apology for that.
        That would be the high road.  Admit you blew it and apologize.  My respect for you would go up enormously.  As it is, I see a poster without the integrity to admit a mistake and instead would rev up the vitriol to cover his silly mistake.  Partisan screaming about where the charts came from does not disprove their validity.  You have not even attempted to bring any data to the discussion that would contradict them.  Thinking that calling them "leftist" would somehow be a confirmation of their lack of accuracy is more damning about your abilities to form an intelligent argument than your writing skills.
        I won't mention your writing anymore.  It's a real issue, but an obvious one.  But your lack of integrity about when you make a very clear error in your criticism will not get a pass.  Ever.  You're a grownup and will be held to account for what you accuse people of.
        Fair enough?

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          BB

          Do you think I was referring to you personally, or is it a mold that fits you? Only you can know that.

          "As it is, I see a poster without the integrity to admit a mistake and instead would rev up the vitriol to cover his silly mistake"

          Now first, I have to admit I could not understand the Vitriol comment. I know it as a strong acid, so I looked it up and found it meant this as well-- abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will. Well I do not think I have shown any abusive or venomous language. Despite the fact we do not agree on some issues I hold no ill will let alone letting it become deep seated( I have more worries with my health issues than to have ill will toward you), and I surely am not censuring you. So I believe you have mis-used the word. But by telling you this means I have to stoop to your level. And I refuse to be that childish.

          If you noticed earlier, as I know you did based on your response, I did admit a mistake as I always do and I always Apologize( and if you read my posts in other threads you would have seen I do) like I did to Modern. You were not even involved in that discussion. But  you could not resist in jumping in. So how do you act to an apology, you go on an English teacher tirade. There is no other explanation except it was to be Vitriol.(bitter deep-seated ill will) I notice you do the same to other hubbers as well

          "Thinking that calling them "leftist" would somehow be a confirmation of their lack of accuracy is more damning about your abilities to form an intelligent argument than your writing skills."

          You are right that just calling them leftist does not show their lack of accuracy. But you have to have facts to base what you claim is true, and in the case of these lefties, it was all opinion. Some were rebellious professors, some were think tanks that go out of their way to push the left agenda no matter what they say, and some were just left bloggers pushing their viewpoint. Once more, just because you say it is so, does not make it so. Why is that so hard to understand?

          You even admitted it yourself in a backwards way:

          "Some are certainly from progressive sources.  That fact alone does not disprove the information they contain.  Should we say the same about conservative sources?"

          Well that fact alone does not make them accurate either. Do I say the same about conservative sources, yes I do. I call out all sources not based on facts.  It does not matter to me who provides the source, as long as it is accurate. I have used left and right sources once I do research to confirm there accuracy, just like I did on the sources of the charts. That is why I broke down the charts and posted the response I did. As for the people and organizations in those charts, I found the information mostly in Wikipedia (a source you cite quiet often and did so earlier in this thread) as to who they were and stood for. So my description of them was accurate, not knee jerk reaction as you claim it was.

          I have seen you a lot here on the forums. You always strongly oppose someone who appears to be on the right side of the aisle or the post leans that way. That is fine, we all have our opinions. That is why there are Dems, Repubs, And independents like me ( I know we are in the minority, but with the garbage going on we will be growing). Some of you responses are dead on and accurate, some are not.

          Like earlier in the thread, you pointed out Phil Gramm’s part in this, you were right. He did play a part in it. But then you posted an article from the times when if you read it, did go along with what Evan was saying.  Your source was not a good one. You must have known so, for you did not challenge Evan.

          Then DannyMaio was having a discussion with Earnestshub when you intervene and said:

          “No Danny, it is you that is very simple”   A clear attack not based on facts or the subject at hand. In fact that was the first time you posted to Danny in this thread. It was not about anything but attack. Why is that? It really goes to show your character, who you really are.

          And you have the nerve to say I have no integrity.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image61
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If you like I will put together a highlight post of your vitriolic statements, but I doubt you really want that.
            If you apologized for your error in your reporting on my citation, I certainly missed it.  Copy and paste it so I can find it.  I didn't see it in this thread.
            As for your comment about the progressive slant of my charts, you specifically stated that you had proved them to be worthless and the only evidence you gave was because they were progressive.  You didn't acknowledge the two charts that were from the U.S. government, still haven't as far as I know.  Your post here is not convincing for me.  Sorry.  Since others on this thread are agreeing that you have a problem at the keyboard, it seems like you are trying to soften your position and make it sound like you weren't spewing venom.  Unless you deleted your posts, the evidence is readily available to all.

            Looking forward to seeing that apology that you say you directed toward me.  Please do this.  I am anxious to apologize if I missed your mea culpa.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              First, when it comes to you in this thread, I did not apologize to you, never said I apologized to you, and I have no reason to apologize to you. You posted the false information, not me.Now what I actually said
              "I did admit a mistake as I always do and I always Apologize( and if you read my posts in other threads you would have seen I do) like I did to Modern". Actually in review I even apologized to Evan. My point was I admit when I make a mistake. And you responded to my apologizing to Modern. You had nothing to do with that conversation but as I said before, "You were not even involved in that discussion. But  you could not resist in jumping in. So how do you act to an apology, you go on an English teacher tirade".

              And before you try to drag others into your tirades, you should really read first. See MM made a comment on spelling, but if you would have read the threads instead of jump into you haste, you would have seen MM took it back. 

              So go ahead, respond and tirade all you want, grade my spelling to your hearts content. If this makes your life happy and content, have at it

              1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, that's cool.  I've made my case.  Others have seen it.  I'm done.

 
working