Page 32 of 44 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 432

Thread: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

  1. #311
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Mensch View Post
    HOW, exactly?
    When you have government picking winners and losers and commanding a corporatist structure, how did deregulation cause the housing crisis?
    Savings and Loan deregulation, Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and lax regulation of home buying are the main culprits.


    NOTHING in the market is too big to fail unless you have a government who refuses to let troubled banks fail. The CRA, the Federal Reserve, and GSEs caused this recent crisis.
    From the Great Depression until its repeal in the 99, the Glass-Steagall Act prevented investment banks from combining with commercial banks. With that firewall removed, there was nothing to stop the creation of banks too big too fail. If that had still been in effect, we could have let the investment banks fail with out sacrificing the commercial banks and therefore the world economy.

    Again, look at the statistics. The people responsible for regulating, responsible for saving banks, have vested interests in the banks that get saved and the markets that are regulated. If you want money out of politics, then build a wall separating government from Wall Street. Otherwise, businesses and governments will ultimately collude. Again, it is baptists and bootleggers working for a common goal.
    Yes, that is a problem as well. I am all for only allowing only public financing of politicians, and ending the Citizens United ruling.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #312
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Mensch View Post
    When we had a thriving economic cycle and a near zero unemployment rate, money was still concentrated at the top. That is obviously not the problem.
    How American Income Inequality Hit Levels Not Seen Since The Depression
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #313
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,745

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    How does half the country being in or near poverty as a result of most of the money being concentrated at the top = more money for consumers to spend???
    How, exactly, are the richest persons NOT consumers?

    Obviously not the same type, but still...

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I don't know what you are trying to say there.
    I’m saying that the cartoon is, in all likelihood, nowhere near an accurate representation of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    We know much of the money is not being spent to create jobs in this country, which is how the tax cuts for the wealthy were sold to the middle class. The Democrats have a bill to end tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs and provide tax incentives for creating jobs in this country and it was blocked by the GOP. When the Republicans spoke of trickle down, we thought it meant more jobs, not just being pissed on.
    I was not planning to enter into a political discussion when I responded to that cartoon, but rather to make a short comment on what I considered a flaw in its primary argument.

    By the way, why are you using “we” here? Do you speak on behalf of some organization?




    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Make what more difficult?
    Lower standards of living in India and China mean that lower wages are necessary to support those lifestyles – translating into a workforce that is willing to accept lower wages than any sane American would for some tasks.

    This further translates into lower labor costs for companies who have facilities in those countries.
    And THAT means those companies can charge less for a product, since it cost them less to manufacture.

    There’s no way in hell that the USA can compete in that area, because the standard of living US citizens want, even those classified as “poor”, is far higher than the standard of living for a similarly classified person in, say, China.

    So, for example, a reduction in corporate income tax, or whatever taxes unreasonably increase the cost of doing business in the USA, would be an incentive for companies to start up here or relocate facilities here.
    A simplification and reduction in the complexity and number of regulations businesses must follow would also help, as (IMO) an unreasonable portion of their income (before expenses, obviously) is wasted on meeting such. Income which could be better used to expand their business….and hire new employees.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #314
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    How, exactly, are the richest persons NOT consumers?

    Obviously not the same type, but still...
    Example:
    Who spends more money, 10,000 people that spend $1 million dollars, or 300 million that spend $30,000.

    I’m saying that the cartoon is, in all likelihood, nowhere near an accurate representation of reality.
    Yes, you are saying that. No, you have not proven that.

    I was not planning to enter into a political discussion when I responded to that cartoon, but rather to make a short comment on what I considered a flaw in its primary argument.
    According to the moderators, that is what the debate forums are for. Have you not seen the multiple warnings?

    By the way, why are you using “we” here? Do you speak on behalf of some organization?
    The majority of the country that support higher taxes for the wealthy. There have been over 20 polls that show this.


    Lower standards of living in India and China mean that lower wages are necessary to support those lifestyles – translating into a workforce that is willing to accept lower wages than any sane American would for some tasks.
    The standard of living is higher in China and India now than it was in the 1960s when the middle class was was better off in the US, so that can't be the reason. But how about the tax incentives we provide to companies that outsource jobs and investment? Think that might have something to do with it?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #315
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Savings and Loan deregulation, Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and lax regulation of home buying are the main culprits.
    Those are most definitely NOT the main culprits of the crisis. Moral hazard, the federal reserve/distorted interest rates, top-down pressure on lending institutions to make risky mortgages, and personal debt are the largest reasons. Deregulation was not.

    Is Deregulation to Blame? - Reason Magazine

    From the Great Depression until its repeal in the 99, the Glass-Steagall Act prevented investment banks from combining with commercial banks. With that firewall removed, there was nothing to stop the creation of banks too big too fail. If that had still been in effect, we could have let the investment banks fail with out sacrificing the commercial banks and therefore the world economy.
    You seem to think a loss of a major investment bank would be painless or at least, less serious than the loss of a commercial one. That is not necessarily so, given the interconnected intricacies of the market. Yet, if not for the partial repeal of G-S, many private commercial banks would not have been able to purchase failing investment ones. Also, as the article above noted, those institutions that did not take advantage of G-S repeal failed on a spectacular level partly because they could not be saved from a stable flow of money. Also, these banks were pretty massive even before the partial repeal.

    Yes, that is a problem as well. I am all for only allowing only public financing of politicians, and ending the Citizens United ruling.
    That is a completely separate issue. I'm talking about dishonest politicians standing for regulatory reform and financial oversight while playing a game of profitable insider-trading. This also involves big businesses being granted special privileges and insider information at the expense of other businesses (most especially small businesses). Add to that the total inefficiency and wastefulness of the regulatory structures. See regulatory capture.

    As for "public financing" of politicians, what does that mean exactly? Public financing, in my mind, means taxpayer-funded. Shouldn't political campaigns be funded by private individuals and private organizations? I support the CU ruling because of the 1st Amendment, and because government does not have authority to restrict the right of individuals- or groups of individuals- from making political contributions or ads.

  6. #316
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    That article did not respond to my counter-argument. Throughout the 1990s and most of the 2000s, we had fairly low unemployment rates and a relatively stable growth in GDP. This is despite our vast "income inequality."

  7. #317
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Mensch View Post
    That article did not respond to my counter-argument. Throughout the 1990s and most of the 2000s, we had fairly low unemployment rates and a relatively stable growth in GDP. This is despite our vast "income inequality."
    Due to greater financial regulation, higher taxes on the wealthy and less military spending in the 90's. I don't think you can call the greatest Recession since the Great Depression of the 2000s, stable growth.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #318
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Mensch View Post
    Those are most definitely NOT the main culprits of the crisis. Moral hazard, the federal reserve/distorted interest rates, top-down pressure on lending institutions to make risky mortgages, and personal debt are the largest reasons. Deregulation was not.

    Is Deregulation to Blame? - Reason Magazine
    Deregulation was most certainly to blame:

    "The late-2000s financial crisis, also known as the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) or the "Great Recession", is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, and a significant decline in economic activity, leading to a severe global economic recession in 2008.[2]
    The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of valuation and liquidity problems in the United States banking system in 2008.[3][4] The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[5][6] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[7] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[8][9][10]
    Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[11] The United States Senate issued the Levin–Coburn Report, which found "that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[12]
    Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[13] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks.[14] In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[15]"

    Late-2000s financial crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    You seem to think a loss of a major investment bank would be painless or at least, less serious than the loss of a commercial one. That is not necessarily so, given the interconnected intricacies of the market. Yet, if not for the partial repeal of G-S, many private commercial banks would not have been able to purchase failing investment ones. Also, as the article above noted, those institutions that did not take advantage of G-S repeal failed on a spectacular level partly because they could not be saved from a stable flow of money. Also, these banks were pretty massive even before the partial repeal.
    If Glass Steagall had not been repealed there would not have been the "interconnected intricacies of the market", that's the point.



    That is a completely separate issue. I'm talking about dishonest politicians standing for regulatory reform and financial oversight while playing a game of profitable insider-trading. This also involves big businesses being granted special privileges and insider information at the expense of other businesses (most especially small businesses). Add to that the total inefficiency and wastefulness of the regulatory structures. See regulatory capture.
    You were talking about corporate influence of politicians, there has never been a bigger avenue for corporate influence than through the Citizens United ruling. The Democrats just voted to end insider trading even though the GOP tried to stop them.

    As for "public financing" of politicians, what does that mean exactly? Public financing, in my mind, means taxpayer-funded.
    That's exactly what it means, it eliminates the influence of corporate funding in election campaigns, so you no longer have politicians being beholden to rich sponsors.

    Shouldn't political campaigns be funded by private individuals and private organizations? I support the CU ruling because of the 1st Amendment, and because government does not have authority to restrict the right of individuals- or groups of individuals- from making political contributions or ads.
    Then your stated desire for less corporate influence has no credibility, at least not with liberals.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #319
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Due to greater financial regulation, higher taxes on the wealthy and less military spending in the 90's. I don't think you can call the greatest Recession since the Great Depression of the 2000s, stable growth.
    1) For the large part the 2000s decade, we had relatively low unemployment and relatively stable economic growth. **** did not start hitting the fan until 2008.

    Your logic doesn't explain the economic growth after deregulation (or even the return of our economy today) or the recessions of past decades (when financial regulations were in place).

    2) We still had a poor Gini index rating throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and even before. How does this explain the implied logic that a greater concentration of money at the top = recession?

    3) Clinton only raised taxes slightly on the wealthiest 1%. He lowered capital gains, estate, and middle class taxes. It was not that significant. Reagan raised taxes almost every year of his presidency and expanded military spending, and again our economy was flush.

    4) Clinton's elimination of wasteful regulation and cutback on federal employees (90% from the military) proved how much we could save by reducing the government workforce.

  10. #320
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Mensch View Post
    1) For the large part the 2000s decade, we had relatively low unemployment and relatively stable economic growth. **** did not start hitting the fan until 2008.
    "Obama was also correct when he said that last year’s private job growth was the most in six years and that the manufacturing sector experienced job gains not seen since the 20th century."
    FactCheck.org : The State of Obama’s Facts

    Your logic doesn't explain the economic growth after deregulation (or even the return of our economy today) or the recessions of past decades (when financial regulations were in place).
    Our economic growth was less than it was under greater financial regulation and higher taxation for the wealthy in the 90s.

    2) We still had a poor Gini index rating throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and even before. How does this explain the implied logic that a greater concentration of money at the top = recession?
    Deregulation and trickle down economics began in i981.

    3) Clinton only raised taxes slightly on the wealthiest 1%. He lowered capital gains, estate, and middle class taxes. It was not that significant.
    I'm fine with going back the tax rates of the 90's, including the capital gains rate, the inheritance tax rate, and the lesser loopholes for the rich.

    Reagan raised taxes almost every year of his presidency and expanded military spending, and again our economy was flush.
    Flush??? Our debt increased more under Reagan, than all the presidents before him combined.

    4) Clinton's elimination of wasteful regulation and cutback on federal employees (90% from the military) proved how much we could save by reducing the government workforce.
    What wasteful regulation did Clinton get rid of??? I agree we need to cut our military spending.
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-24-12 at 03:40 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 32 of 44 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •