Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?
Anybody?
Maybe from some of that obscene CEO wage...... you know, 400 x the average wage......
OK, let's use WalMart as an example. The CEO makes $25 Million. Let's cut his salary to $5 Million and divide the remainder among the remaining 2.2 Million employees. I doubt a .76 cent per month raise would get anybody too jazzed up.
And what about people that don't work under a CEO? Those calling for higher wages should consider the proposal from the business owners point of view for once, the restaurant owner or the guy who runs the dry cleaners. Where's the money going to come from to pay these higher wages? It's a pretty important question to ask.
Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?
Anybody?
Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.
Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?
Anybody?
Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.
If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth while the middle class shrinks and poverty levels rise? This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?
Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?
Anybody?
Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.
If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth... This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?
I would guess that investments have something to do with it. A one percenter with $15,000,000 in stocks paying an average dividend is looking at about $275,000 a year in dividend income. Just run of the mill bond fund will provide over $300,000 on that principal.
And what about people that don't work under a CEO? Those calling for higher wages should consider the proposal from the business owners point of view for once, the restaurant owner or the guy who runs the dry cleaners. Where's the money going to come from to pay these higher wages? It's a pretty important question to ask.
The theory is that if the people in that area had higher wages, they would go out to eat more, get their clothes cleaned more often, or buy clothes that need to be cleaned at cleaners etc. meaning more business.....
Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?
Anybody?
Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.
If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth... This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?
I would guess that investments have something to do with it. A one percenter with $15,000,000 in stocks paying an average dividend is looking at about $275,000 a year in dividend income. Just run of the mill bond fund will provide over $300,000 on that principal.
That has been going on all along. How does that account for the redistribution of wealth since 2000?
And what about people that don't work under a CEO? Those calling for higher wages should consider the proposal from the business owners point of view for once, the restaurant owner or the guy who runs the dry cleaners. Where's the money going to come from to pay these higher wages? It's a pretty important question to ask.
The theory is that if the people in that area had higher wages, they would go out to eat more, get their clothes cleaned more often, or buy clothes that need to be cleaned at cleaners etc. meaning more business.....
In other words, it will trickle down. 😮
[Edited on 9/17/2015 by gondicar]
Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!
Yup.
The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.
Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?
This is a very interesting question. Apparently, just being rich exempts people from a lot of things. Puts them on some sort of pedestal to where they are not to be questioned, because, after all, they are rich.
As you know, I worked for a subprime mortgage company. When the whole thing started to go south, we did a pretty good job weathering the initial storm. Naturally, new originations plummeted, but we had a solid, profitable servicing unit that numbered at 400 people, and a portfolio that, while subprime, was consistently 90% on time. That's the other side of "they got a delinquency rate of 10%!"
One day, the CEO (a very rich guy, said in a meeting during the peak of the bubble "I'm as rich as Michael Jordan!") called us all into a room. This is what he said:
"I'm not stupid to think that none of you aren't aware of what's going on in our industry. A lot of us have been fearful that this time may come. But, I tell you what. We're still strong, and it's because of you. My phone is ringing off the hook. Every time I'm talking to someone about the future, I'm thinking about all of you. You've all put in the time and the sweat to get us to where we are. I can't guarantee that this company will look the same, but I'm committed to doing everything I can to keeping you all employed and taken care of. So, I ask you, stick around. Something very, very good for all of you may just be around the corner."
About , oh, 390 of us took it to heart. It was a great place to work, we had all done well financially, he and the rest of the execs were fantastic.
The edict came down. Strengthen the portfolio, strengthen the future. We worked harder than ever before. 12 hour days, tightening up the fees, the collections, modifying loans to get them to perform better. Emails would come from the top...keep it up. Rome is burning around us but are gonna weather this. Keep the faith!
About a month passes and one of the younger guys in Collections, bored while waiting for the next call to come in, was poking around the network drives. Clicking here, clicking there, some folders blocked at his security level, some not.
Then, he clicks on the Investor Relations folder. Surprisingly, he had access.
Another folder. "Press Releases."
This was around 9:30 in the morning. It was dated for that day, but we always sent out our press releases at 5pm, so this one was ready to go.
The content? It stated that the company was selling the entire servicing unit and loan portfolio to a company 800 miles away two states over. About 400 employees would be impacted, and it was unsure if relocations were an option.
So, instantly realizing that we were all getting let go, he emails the release to about three people, then the next ten people, and all of fifteen minutes later, everyone has read the press release. 10:15 in the morning and everyone stopped working. Over 100 people head to the nerve and info center of any large company, the smoker's patio. Chaos reigns.
Knowing the jig is up, the CEO calls us all back into the same room he had a month prior.
"I want you to know that I did what I could, what you read is true. HR will be letting everyone know next steps. I just want you all to know that I am personally distraught."
Then he left the room. I've never been able to reconcile whether or not he should of apologized, but, he didn't.
Three weeks to go, and if you wanted your severance package, you had to work to the last day. That was actually kind of fun in a twisted way, especially the last week as those in managerial roles desperately tried to hang on to whatever leverage they still had. The last three days, everyone was down to packing cubes and loading all the loan files into boxes. Then, it was just over.
I knew a lot of the guys above me. I'd call them all rich. I knew the kinds of bank they were making, we were publicly traded and I know how to read SEC filings. Went out for drink with a couple guys and the former director of the servicing unit, turns out he had the whole kit-and-kaboodle sold three different times to three different companies. All of those offers were rejected because none of those deals were the best deal for the personal fortunes of the CEO. That last month of "strengthen the portfolio?" It was simply to drive the value as high as possible before the actual sale date. The CEO told the servicing director to get multiple deals so he could choose the best deal for the employees. What he was actually doing was using them as bargaining chips with the company he was going to sell off to all along. There was NEVER any intention of caring for the well-being of ANY of the 400 people in that room.
The guy (again, very rich) lied and didn't apologize.
What did a rich person ever take from me? My trust. My dedication. My time. I and 400 other people busted our humps for this very rich guy who said he cared about us and didn't. Such is life, I suppose.
Should someone confiscate all of his wealth and redistribute it? No. Does that make him any less of a liar? I think not. That has zero to do with net worth.
So, my question is return is...since he was "rich," I have no right to any ill-will or bad feelings due to a "rich person immunity?"
Which begs another question...does the rich person bear no responsibility to the people he or she employs? What is a 1,000 person company without 999 of them?
The way these people think you'd think that everyone was living ina dipalitated shack while enslaved to the Lord of the Manor instead of having multiple cars, multiple tv's, smart phones and laptops galore.
Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery.
These statements do not reconcile. Are people doing well or not?
The way these people think you'd think that everyone was living ina dipalitated shack while enslaved to the Lord of the Manor instead of having multiple cars, multiple tv's, smart phones and laptops galore.
Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery.
These statements do not reconcile. Are people doing well or not?
Who cares? Let the little whinebags eat cake.
Saying that trickle down economics doesn't work is like saying that hammers don't work. I could start listing hundreds of examples and that wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
This is what I don't understand about this position:
If it works so well, why is the middle class shrinking as poverty rates increase, worker's wages are stagnate, and wealth in the US is increasingly concentrated within the top 1%? Isn't a strong and growing middle class the backbone of our economy?Its been working great - but people who don't think so just aren't looking broadly enough, or asking the right questions.
Alloak is exactly right, all economic models and types (other than barter or monarchies that control everything by force) are based on trickle down. Someone - either individuals or govt - must decide to spend money or exert effort (usually both) and develop products and services that they think have demand in the marketplace. Without that first step, nothing else happens. It can be as simple as a farmer getting seed to grow food for sale, or venture capitalists risking millions on a new factory. If anyone thinks that investing in all forms doesn't work by trickling down, then please explain why it doesn't.
Most of you are all for another form of trickle-down, that being govt spending. You completely support the idea of corrupt politicians spending tax money we don't have on questionable govt "investments" with no sanity applied about the return. You're perfectly willing to believe in the economic multiplier effects of that money trickling down through the economy, as long as Nancy Pelosi says it's so.
Trickle-down has been performing miracles - just not a much in the USA in recent decades. Look at China. They couldn't even feed their population in the 70's into the 80's. Now they're vying with the USA for the top economy in the world. Would anyone claim that the effects of economic trickle-down hasn't help the Chinese people?
How did they advance this far? They set conditions to favor global investment productive enterprise. Sure, some of those conditions might be questionable and undesirable here. But the key is that they attracted investment by changing the conditions that was keeping it away.
Trickle-down is as healthy as ever. Its just less health here than in the past. We refuse to address the issue from that perspective. Or worse, we seek punishment for those who have invested here, making them less willing to do more.
The silly use of the term "trickle down" as a political bludgeon is pure ignorance of how things work. If you don't like how it's not working as well here as it used to, vote for leaders who understand that the real game is optimizing the conditions for global investment.
Or, maybe instead of government spending maybe if the corporations would pay workers a living wage (or at least enough that the government didn't have to subsidize their paychecks in one way or another) the masses would make enough money to purchase goods causing a trickle up effect. Greater marketplace causes greater demand for goods. Poor people not having enough money after buying food and rent do little to help the economy. Seems like a lot of what happened in the '90s was a result of trickle up and not trickle down.
Bingo!!!! Another chicken dinner!!!! Exactly right. We have been trying to make this trickle down thing work unsuccessfully for decades. Time to try that trickle up philosophy. More wages people earn for their hard work the more they spend into the economy. The more they spend the higher the demand for products and services which in turn would create higher wages as well as more jobs.
Where will the money come from to pay these higher wages?
The money will come from some of the businesses profits. We are talking about businesses whose profits have grown and grown and grown over the decades while wages for those businesses employees have remained stagnant over the same period of time. The businesses didn't trickle down any of their profits to their employees who helped create those profits. It is funny. Business people don't want to have to share down their profits with their employees and want huge tax breaks at the same time. Then they still think it is alright to outsource American jobs in order to make even more profits for the shareholders and CEOs. They want it all but then claim trickle down works when it doesn't.
And what about people that don't work under a CEO? Those calling for higher wages should consider the proposal from the business owners point of view for once, the restaurant owner or the guy who runs the dry cleaners. Where's the money going to come from to pay these higher wages? It's a pretty important question to ask.
The theory is that if the people in that area had higher wages, they would go out to eat more, get their clothes cleaned more often, or buy clothes that need to be cleaned at cleaners etc. meaning more business.....
But the question still remains. Where does the money come from to pay these higher wages? It's a serious question, but one that doesn't seem to be considered.
You're theory is just that. It's hard to predict what people will do with money. For instance, It was predicted that low gas prices would lead to a spike in consumer spending in other areas. That hasn't happened. Not yet.
The way these people think you'd think that everyone was living ina dipalitated shack while enslaved to the Lord of the Manor instead of having multiple cars, multiple tv's, smart phones and laptops galore.
Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery.
These statements do not reconcile. Are people doing well or not?
Absolutely, Barack said if you can afford a pizza you are doing awesome.
And what about people that don't work under a CEO? Those calling for higher wages should consider the proposal from the business owners point of view for once, the restaurant owner or the guy who runs the dry cleaners. Where's the money going to come from to pay these higher wages? It's a pretty important question to ask.
The theory is that if the people in that area had higher wages, they would go out to eat more, get their clothes cleaned more often, or buy clothes that need to be cleaned at cleaners etc. meaning more business.....
But the question still remains. Where does the money come from to pay these higher wages? It's a serious question, but one that doesn't seem to be considered.
You're theory is just that. It's hard to predict what people will do with money. For instance, It was predicted that low gas prices would lead to a spike in consumer spending in other areas. That hasn't happened. Not yet.
The "theory" that putting more money in the pockets of everyday Americans leads to more consumer spending and economic growth is one that both sides of the political spectrum often use to justify policy positions and initiatives. Whether it is tax breaks favored by the right or higher minimum wages favored by the left, they are both based on a "theory". In fact, economics is essentially a collection of theories. Of course reality often takes a different path and then the blame game starts, but pretty much every policy position I heard during the debate last night was based on theory, especially where the economy is concerned. I guess it all comes down to which theory you want to believe in.
[Edited on 9/17/2015 by gondicar]
The way these people think you'd think that everyone was living ina dipalitated shack while enslaved to the Lord of the Manor instead of having multiple cars, multiple tv's, smart phones and laptops galore.
Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery.
These statements do not reconcile. Are people doing well or not?
Absolutely, Barack said if you can afford a pizza you are doing awesome.
Interesting. He said exactly that? Can you link to that? That'd be something to read.
Edit: If that's a reference to a particular State of the Union, I believe he referred to "Friday night pizza" as a "splurge."
[Edited on 9/17/2015 by Bhawk]
Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!
Yup.
The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.
Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?
Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?
Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!
Yup.
The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.
Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?
Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?
_______________________________________________________________________
Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.
I've been saying all along that Trump and Maine Gov Paul LePage are cut from the same cloth...
Trump presidency? Look to Maine for a taste of how it will work out
By The BDN Editorial Board
Posted Sept. 17, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.
Billionaire Donald Trump has been leading his fellow contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in polls for more than two months. Why is he so popular? To many, Trump is best known for his insults: fellow GOP contender Carly Fiorina is ugly; Sen. John McCain, who was held prisoner for five years during the Vietnam War, is no hero because he was captured; and Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly is a bimbo having her period.
Outrage ensued following these insults, but so did Trump’s rise in the polls. What opponents see as intemperate insults, supporters see as needed straight talk. In this regard, Trump has a lot in common with Gov. Paul LePage, who built his political career on being blunt and unpolished. He’s just like us and tells it like it is, his supporters say.
Beyond the insults, however, is a more insidious blame game that especially singles out immigrants and the poor. Concerned about disease outbreaks? Crack down on immigrants who entered the country illegally. Your taxes too high? That lazy welfare cheat refuses to get a job and is spending your tax dollars on steak and beer — and he owns a snowmobile.
It doesn’t matter if any of these assertions are true. They make us feel better because they shift the blame. We are not responsible for our problems or deficiencies. They are someone else’s fault. The governor said so.
By legitimizing our fears and biases, politicians like LePage and Trump give voice to what many are feeling but are afraid to voice.
“The speaker gets to say what others wish they could say,” writing and language guru Roy Peter Clark said in a recent commentary for the Poynter Institute. “If the common person says it, there are consequences. When the champion utters the words, he is not just immune, he is rewarded.”
LePage’s insults began to get serious notice shortly after he took office in January 2011 when the NAACP criticized him for not attending their annual Martin Luther King ceremony. The group, he said, could “ kiss my butt.”
In 2013, the governor said a state senator was “the first one to give it to the people without providing Vaseline.” He added: “People like Troy Jackson, they ought to go back into the woods and cut trees and let someone with a brain come down here and do some good work.”
After each insult, opponents expressed outrage, but supporters essentially said “you tell ’em, governor.” LePage joked about his “street talk” during his re-election bid last year, insulting his own ethnicity. “Even a Frenchman can be taught to cool down,” he said during a debate last fall.
The problem with an elected official being insulter-in-chief, however, is that he often has to work with those he insults. Trump and LePage also have a propensity to tell people what to do, often coupled with an insult — do what I say or you are corrupt, have no brain or are in the way.
Because of this, LePage has lost support among a number of Republican lawmakers and leaders. In his intemperate way, he issued 64 line-item vetoes of the state budget this spring. They were overturned handily in a matter of hours. He then vetoed the entire budget. The Legislature also overturned that veto.
Insulting opponents may make an elected official and his supporters feel better, but it doesn’t build the kind of trust and cooperation that is needed to govern effectively.
So what to do? Clark warns that appealing to reason and decorum are futile. “The insult’s appeal is less to the brain and more to the solar plexus. That is what the political opponents of Donald Trump — and to some extent the press — fail to understand. You cannot defeat an aggressive insulter with decorum or policy wonkery.”
He suggests finding someone who is a better insulter. The late author and social critic Christopher Hitchens wrote of Trump: “Donald Trump — a ludicrous figure, but at least he’s lived it up a bit in the real world, and at least he’s worked out how to cover 90 percent of his skull with 30 percent of his hair.”
Funny, yes. Helpful in ending government gridlock and building consensus for needed policy changes? Probably not.
Saying that trickle down economics doesn't work is like saying that hammers don't work. I could start listing hundreds of examples and that wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
This is what I don't understand about this position:
If it works so well, why is the middle class shrinking as poverty rates increase, worker's wages are stagnate, and wealth in the US is increasingly concentrated within the top 1%? Isn't a strong and growing middle class the backbone of our economy?Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery. Poor economic growth inevitably hurts the middle class. Socialists look at income inequality. Those who favor free enterprise understand that there will always be inequality and that if the wealth is confiscated by the government,t he capital that grows the economy and increases wealth for everyone is not available. Socialists believe its unfair that some have more than others. Liberals bewlieve in freedom.
But the middle class has been shrinking since 2000, long before this administration came to power, while the top 1% has continued to capture more and more of the wealth in America. How can the top 1% be accumulating more wealth if the economy is stagnant?
Because they are holding the capital rather than using it to expand because of the poor business climate. Merely focusing on the wealthiest of the wealthy does NOTHING to help anyone else. What are you going to do confiscate their wealth and have the former middle class gather and throw cash out for them to grab? That's not how it works. The left wants everyone to focus on hatred and resentment of the wealthy because it lets everyone ignore the fact that socialistic policies actually do NOTHING to grow the middle class or help the poor or anything else. Liberal economic policies that favor free enterprise and competition and reward risk taking help them. As well as the wealthy. But it helps everyone.
Saying that trickle down economics doesn't work is like saying that hammers don't work. I could start listing hundreds of examples and that wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
This is what I don't understand about this position:
If it works so well, why is the middle class shrinking as poverty rates increase, worker's wages are stagnate, and wealth in the US is increasingly concentrated within the top 1%? Isn't a strong and growing middle class the backbone of our economy?Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery. Poor economic growth inevitably hurts the middle class. Socialists look at income inequality. Those who favor free enterprise understand that there will always be inequality and that if the wealth is confiscated by the government,t he capital that grows the economy and increases wealth for everyone is not available. Socialists believe its unfair that some have more than others. Liberals bewlieve in freedom.
But the middle class has been shrinking since 2000, long before this administration came to power, while the top 1% has continued to capture more and more of the wealth in America. How can the top 1% be accumulating more wealth if the economy is stagnant?
With all the the rhetoric from the right wing you would think that the current tax rates are at historic highs and that is what is hurting the economy, but that is far from the truth. Tax rates in the US are at near historic lows. If low tax rates feed economic growth, how long do we have to wait for that to happen. When is the trickle down going to start? 25 years? 100 years?
It started working 200 years ago. It never stopped working. Apparently the sticking point is that it hasn't made everybody rich, but then nobody has ever said it would.
Nobody in this thread has said anything about being made rich but you. The middle class is shrinking, poverty rates are climbing, and yet the top 1% continues to garner more and more of the wealth in the US. How is that evidence of trickle down economics working?
Becaue there isn't THE wealth. There is an ever growing expansion of wealth. COmpare the size of the U.S. economy in 1915 to now? The difference is staggering and that wealth has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and into a comfortable lifestyle. Even the people who wouldn't be considered middle class are extraordinarily fortunate compared to similarly situated people one hudred years ago. This happens solely because of the growth of the economy. Th economy grows because wealthy people and companies use their wealth in productive ways that expand the capital base. The last 8 years growth has been stagnant. Normally after a recession the economy rebounds. Anti-growth policies stifle growth and that hurts the middle class and poor the most. The wealthy are still wealthy. We need them to create growth.
Saying that trickle down economics doesn't work is like saying that hammers don't work. I could start listing hundreds of examples and that wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
This is what I don't understand about this position:
If it works so well, why is the middle class shrinking as poverty rates increase, worker's wages are stagnate, and wealth in the US is increasingly concentrated within the top 1%? Isn't a strong and growing middle class the backbone of our economy?Its been working great - but people who don't think so just aren't looking broadly enough, or asking the right questions.
Alloak is exactly right, all economic models and types (other than barter or monarchies that control everything by force) are based on trickle down. Someone - either individuals or govt - must decide to spend money or exert effort (usually both) and develop products and services that they think have demand in the marketplace. Without that first step, nothing else happens. It can be as simple as a farmer getting seed to grow food for sale, or venture capitalists risking millions on a new factory. If anyone thinks that investing in all forms doesn't work by trickling down, then please explain why it doesn't.
Most of you are all for another form of trickle-down, that being govt spending. You completely support the idea of corrupt politicians spending tax money we don't have on questionable govt "investments" with no sanity applied about the return. You're perfectly willing to believe in the economic multiplier effects of that money trickling down through the economy, as long as Nancy Pelosi says it's so.
Trickle-down has been performing miracles - just not a much in the USA in recent decades. Look at China. They couldn't even feed their population in the 70's into the 80's. Now they're vying with the USA for the top economy in the world. Would anyone claim that the effects of economic trickle-down hasn't help the Chinese people?
How did they advance this far? They set conditions to favor global investment productive enterprise. Sure, some of those conditions might be questionable and undesirable here. But the key is that they attracted investment by changing the conditions that was keeping it away.
Trickle-down is as healthy as ever. Its just less health here than in the past. We refuse to address the issue from that perspective. Or worse, we seek punishment for those who have invested here, making them less willing to do more.
The silly use of the term "trickle down" as a political bludgeon is pure ignorance of how things work. If you don't like how it's not working as well here as it used to, vote for leaders who understand that the real game is optimizing the conditions for global investment.
Or, maybe instead of government spending maybe if the corporations would pay workers a living wage (or at least enough that the government didn't have to subsidize their paychecks in one way or another) the masses would make enough money to purchase goods causing a trickle up effect. Greater marketplace causes greater demand for goods. Poor people not having enough money after buying food and rent do little to help the economy. Seems like a lot of what happened in the '90s was a result of trickle up and not trickle down.
Bingo!!!! Another chicken dinner!!!! Exactly right. We have been trying to make this trickle down thing work unsuccessfully for decades. Time to try that trickle up philosophy. More wages people earn for their hard work the more they spend into the economy. The more they spend the higher the demand for products and services which in turn would create higher wages as well as more jobs.
It would be nice if it would work that way, but it simply doesn't.
Higher wages first, without existing higher demand, is a failed equation. It will simply inflate prices and become an artificial manipulation of the economic equation.
The only way it works is to raise demand for workers. That happens when investment is made in productive activities to the degree necessary to raise the number of employed people. Demand for labor raises wages in the only sustainable way possible.
Just look at what's happened with the oil boom in the Dakota's. Demand for labor has driven up wages to the point that bonuses were being paid just to come and accept the job.
You want higher wages, vote for leaders who understand that the real game is optimizing the conditions for global investment.
Rich you are fighting the good fight but you are banging your head against a brick wall here.
Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?
Anybody?
Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.
If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth while the middle class shrinks and poverty levels rise? This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?
I explained it in a prior post. They are given disincentives to do the things that help grow the private economy, the ONLY thing that helps raise the standard of living, increase employment and wages.
Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?
Anybody?
Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.
If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth... This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?
I would guess that investments have something to do with it. A one percenter with $15,000,000 in stocks paying an average dividend is looking at about $275,000 a year in dividend income. Just run of the mill bond fund will provide over $300,000 on that principal.
That has been going on all along. How does that account for the redistribution of wealth since 2000?
The very term "re-distribution of wealth" is false. It makes no sense. It has no meaning. It is a socialist/marxist assumption that there is X amount of wealth that needs to be fairly distributed. That's nonsense. As I've pointed out. The American economy has grown exponentially in the past hundred years even taking into account depressions and recessions. It is this growth that has enabled the United States to support an ever growing population that has basically doubled in that time as well as a standard of living that even the poor enjoy that Kings couldn't have imagined.
The way these people think you'd think that everyone was living ina dipalitated shack while enslaved to the Lord of the Manor instead of having multiple cars, multiple tv's, smart phones and laptops galore.
Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery.
These statements do not reconcile. Are people doing well or not?
In the larger scheme we are still doing well compared to the rest of the world and the rest of humanity going back to all time. GBy our own moder standards and the standard of our potential we are not. But the reason is not because evil plutocrats are stealing all the wealth.
Again, no one supporting trickle down economics has actually addressed the fact that since 2000 the middle class has been shrinking, povery rates are increasing, and more and more of the wealth in the US has become concentrated in the top 1%. How does that support the idea that trickle down economics is working?
Anybody?
Replace the current adversarial relationship toward business with a pro-business climate that encourages growth once again and wages will rise. The government has managed to make the USA one of the worst places on Earth to do business.
If it is the worst place in the world to do business, why is the top 1% still increasing their wealth while the middle class shrinks and poverty levels rise? This has been going on since 2000, long before the current administration came to power. How does your response address these issues?
I explained it in a prior post. They are given disincentives to do the things that help grow the private economy, the ONLY thing that helps raise the standard of living, increase employment and wages.
The ones at the top have actually recovered everything, and then some. Why should they care about the ones below them?
Let's not carry on like the top 1% are trying to act on some noble cause of improving our society but are being hindered by certain politicians you don't like.
The way these people think you'd think that everyone was living ina dipalitated shack while enslaved to the Lord of the Manor instead of having multiple cars, multiple tv's, smart phones and laptops galore.
Because the stifling anti-growth policies of the current administration have stifled what would normally be a strong economic recovery.
These statements do not reconcile. Are people doing well or not?
In the larger scheme we are still doing well compared to the rest of the world and the rest of humanity going back to all time. GBy our own moder standards and the standard of our potential we are not. But the reason is not because evil plutocrats are stealing all the wealth.
So, we are doing better than the rest of humanity in the history of humanity, and it's still not enough?
When will it be?
Furthermore, since we are doing better than the rest of humanity in the history of humanity, why are you complaining about anemic economies? All time best ever in the history of ever is pretty impressive.
What are you going to do confiscate their wealth and have the former middle class gather and throw cash out for them to grab? That's not how it works. The left wants everyone to focus on hatred and resentment of the wealthy because it lets everyone ignore the fact that socialistic policies actually do NOTHING to grow the middle class or help the poor or anything else. Liberal economic policies that favor free enterprise and competition and reward risk taking help them. As well as the wealthy.
This is a complete chicken-or-the-egg scenario. There is no downside for a wealthy person to keep all of their money. None. If the money funnels up and stays there, no I'm-gonna-call-you-all-communists-whenever-I-want diatribes are gonna change that.
Trickle down economics has worked well over the last 35 years...why change now?!
Yup.
The top 1% are pissing all over the rest of us.
Just curious, when did any rich person take something from you? What did they take?
Some very profitable corporations such as Walmart are taking money I pay for taxes and using it to subsidize their workers pay in the form of food stamps, etc. Why should a huge, extremely profitable company be allowed to pay their full time workers so little that they still qualify for government assistance? How exactly is this economic model good for the US economy?
_______________________________________________________________________
Since you are unaware, for your answer you would have to ask The Democrats and Obama who hand out the taxpayers money to buy votes.
Oh yeah, that's right. The Democrats are the ones who spend all the money and the Republicans are the fiscally conservative party. The Republicans keep telling me that, and I'm sure the Fox News watching "low information voters" believe that. Too bad us "high information voters" who actually look at the numbers know that government spending has increased every time a Republican is in office are deficits decrease when a Democrat. I'd take a few minutes to post a chart here to prove it, but you'd just ignore it anyway so I won't waste my time.
