Is Trickle Down" a Plutocratic Religion, or an Economic Theory

"Trickle Down" Is a Plutocratic Religion, Not an Economic Theory | BuzzFlash.org


Trickle Down" Is a Plutocratic Religion, Not an Economic Theory
"The economists and pundits are legion who have challenged the notion that the amassing of wealth by a privileged few results in more jobs being created in the US. After all, if this were the case - at a time the richer are becoming even richer - why did we nearly just reach a depression?"

Is the article correct?
Does "Trickle Down" kill USA jobs?
Is it an economic theory?

Yep, nothing has ever trickled down to our family, except northwest rain. Every penny we have, we've worked for.

DaveFagan said:

"Trickle Down" Is a Plutocratic Religion, Not an Economic Theory | BuzzFlash.org


Trickle Down" Is a Plutocratic Religion, Not an Economic Theory
"The economists and pundits are legion who have challenged the notion that the amassing of wealth by a privileged few results in more jobs being created in the US. After all, if this were the case - at a time the richer are becoming even richer - why did we nearly just reach a depression?"

Is the article correct?
Does "Trickle Down" kill USA jobs?
Is it an economic theory?

Click to expand...

Bahjezzzus, Dave! You are ackin for an ass kickin just for raising this question. Better put on a crash helmet and buckle up. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

I for one, don't think Trickle down trickled, but that's my opinion. I'm not gonna spend uphteen hours trying to justify my "opinion". Interesting article...really is.

Since your wading in muddy waters. Try the following, see if any of it makes sense. Now you really have to read the entire article to fully understand and be capable of making a comment. So...give it a shot if you get a chance.

charles hugh smith-Social Fractals and the Corruption of America

Both? It's an economic theory. Just an extremely bad one, that is largely based on false assumptions and outright lies. We've been trying it for 40 years, and the trickling isn't happening. And it clearly shows that the bulk of this country needs a lot more than trickles to live on.

It's an economy theory but one that has been proven to not work, just like communism. Because our system is about monetary accumulation and profit maximization, tax breaks just result in more wealth being retained, not redistributed.

Removable Mind said:

Bahjezzzus, Dave! You are ackin for an ass kickin just for raising this question. Better put on a crash helmet and buckle up. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

I for one, don't think Trickle down trickled, but that's my opinion. I'm not gonna spend uphteen hours trying to justify my "opinion". Interesting article...really is.

Since your wading in muddy waters. Try the following, see if any of it makes sense. Now you really have to read the entire article to fully understand and be capable of making a comment. So...give it a shot if you get a chance.

charles hugh smith-Social Fractals and the Corruption of America

Click to expand...

Wow. I did read it and this quote sums a great deal, "The system, though nominally legal, is corrupt. The financial and political Elites (the Power Elites, or the Plutocracy) as a matter of course are not bound by the same laws that control the non-Elite citizenry. " That does seem to be the current reality and also why they hate "Occupy Wall Street."

where is the poll option that

THIS IS A SILLY POLL THAT NEEDS TO GET FLUSHED

Supply-side economics has largely been discredited, and has fallen out of favor even amongst many conservative economists. It's not that it doesn't contain any grains of truth...the Laffer Curve does exist, the problem is just that supply-siders incorrectly think we're on the wrong side of it. Similarly, supply-siders are correct that higher taxes are a net negative for the economy...but so is a higher deficit and/or lower spending, and you can't simultaneously have low taxes, low deficits, and high spending no matter how much Grover Norquist and Steve Forbes want to pretend that you can.

There are certain situations where supply-side economics may be helpful, but the current recession is not one of them. Virtually all of our current problems are on the demand side. The reason unemployment is so high has absolutely nothing to do with businesses not having enough money; many corporations are sitting on top of huge piles of cash, but they aren't spending it because they are fearful that consumers won't buy their products.

Neither. It's complete and utter nonsense. The richest of the richest Americans don't pass down the wealth. At least not to America or Americans. The richest Americans, they fire Americans, hire Bangladeshi workers and lower production costs while maximizing profit. After that, they buy a boat made in Germany, move to St. Maarten and spend their money on French champagne and Cuban cigars.

TurtleDude said:

where is the poll option that

THIS IS A SILLY POLL THAT NEEDS TO GET FLUSHED

Click to expand...

I interpret that as an acknowledgement by you that you have absolutely no information/facts/knowledge/rumors to support the validity of "Trickle Down" economics. It should more correctly be called "Trickle UP" economics to accurately describe its function. No need to thank me, I know it has something to do with envy because I've seen your repeated texts making statements of such ilk. When overcome by confusion, pull the chain and hope the flush that follows will clean the system.

I have to laugh at all the liberals and progressive who chorus about how trickle down economics is a failure. Obama has been the biggest proponent of trickle down economics in the history of the U.S. signing off on 6 trilion in debt just to that the too big to fail corps continue to exist, and then praise Obama for rescuing our country from economic oblivion. Do you guys even realise what it is you are saying? lol

we gave trickle down a shot. we should try trickle up again.

00timh said:

I have to laugh at all the liberals and progressive who chorus about how trickle down economics is a failure. Obama has been the biggest proponent of trickle down economics in the history of the U.S. signing off on 6 trilion in debt just to that the too big to fail corps continue to exist, and then praise Obama for rescuing our country from economic oblivion. Do you guys even realise what it is you are saying? lol

Click to expand...

Allowing the financial sector to collapse is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Being anti-trickle down DOES NOT mean you think Capital Markets aren't important. It's a belief that capital markets function by providing liquidity....and that there's no such thing as providing "more" liquidity. You either have a functioning capital market or you don't. This idea that pumping more money into capital markets when they already serve the purpose they are in place to serve is what is being criticized.

Not gonna buy it from you guys. You can't say that Reagonomics is the reason for the economic slide and then quadruple what he did and say you are saving the country. Its just pure partisan hackery.

Temporal said:

It's an economy theory but one that has been proven to not work, just like communism. Because our system is about monetary accumulation and profit maximization, tax breaks just result in more wealth being retained, not redistributed.

Click to expand...

As a theory... on paper... I think it is a good theory. As a theory. Take it off the paper and insert people, and like I often say regarding things like this, it can only work if everybody involved is on the same page (which is another way phrasing your point, I think), and because not everybody is on the same page, it fails.

00timh said:

I have to laugh at all the liberals and progressive who chorus about how trickle down economics is a failure. Obama has been the biggest proponent of trickle down economics in the history of the U.S. signing off on 6 trilion in debt just to that the too big to fail corps continue to exist, and then praise Obama for rescuing our country from economic oblivion. Do you guys even realise what it is you are saying? lol

Click to expand...

Well, up to August 2011 the amount was 4.7 Trillion.

And not to split hairs here. Bush took office with the Nation Debt at $5.6 Trillion and left office with it standing at $10.1 Trillion. Let me seeeee. That's right at $5 Trillion increase in the National Debt. Now that's a subtantial increase in the national debt.

But what I'd not like to do here is assign blame on Bush. The poor guy just had a load of **** on his plate throughout his presidency, right?

And as far as Obama rescuing this country from anything...our country remains in a world of ****...because of the irreponsibility and corruption of our Government over the past several decades. I BLAME THEM ALL...for our mess. Partisan blaming doesn't work for me. And I am including both sides. They're equally as corrupt and crooked.

You wanna believe that your government HAS EVER worked in the best interest of you...or America. Fine, you can live with that delusion all you want.

Is Trickle Down is sound economics? Yes for the wealthy.
Is Trickle Down is a fraud? No, it works perfectly for the wealthy.
Trickle Down kills USA jobs? No, some of the homes the wealthy live in have a staff of 75 or more.

The "theory" that I personally have knowledge of is the "trickle up" theory.

I moved to Korea in 1963. They did not have so mach as one paved road. Millions of people lived in discarded refrigerator boxes that came from US Military homes. There were very few vehicles, the cabs were ancient Jeeps with doors that closed by wrapping a wire to secure them. The poverty was just abject.

In 1965, I moved to Vietnam and eventually was assigned to a Korean outpost in Dong De (35 miles North of Nha Trang). Those guys were some great soldiers! They worked all day at engineering projects and at night they went on patrol. What they did with the few hours that they weren't working or being shot at, was to black market stuff they could buy at the PX. They all did it - some more than others - but all of them. These guys were from the poorest of the poor and were unable to bribe their way our of being deployed in RVN.

They all were able to send money home to their families. Their pay was only about $200 a month but they would make hundreds more black marketing. These poor families got rtheir hands on money for the first time in their lives and they - finally - got to buy a refrigerator instead of living in the box.

By 1968, when I returned to Korea,. the changes were apparent. They've just kept on progressing since. So, yeah, trickle up works, trickle down is just terminology for the rich pissing on the poor.

If instead of these last 2 miserable Presidents we had/have, both of whom are only interested in stimulating the rich, they had simply sent every tax paying American a $10,000.00 Visa card with a 6 month expiration date, we would be booming again. Instead, we have given multi-million dollar bonuses to the creepy criminals in the banking, weapons and mercenary industries.

00timh said:

Not gonna buy it from you guys. You can't say that Reagonomics is the reason for the economic slide and then quadruple what he did and say you are saving the country. Its just pure partisan hackery.

Click to expand...

Actually....Bush passed TARP and I considered it the one of the best actions of his Presidency. I was working at a brokerage firm when it happened...I remember the first time it failed and markets took a nose dive and people were panicky. When it passed markets rebounded (a bit) and there was a lot more confidence in the markets and financial institutions.

TARP and the bailouts arent' partisan hackary...it's doing what needs to be done...pragmatism...understanding economic realities.

A whole economic policy based on the idea that wealth going to the top raises all boats is a completely different thing.

Removable Mind said:

Well,...because of the irreponsibility and corruption of our Government over the past several decades. I BLAME THEM ALL...for our mess. Partisan blaming doesn't work for me. And I am including both sides. They're equally as corrupt and crooked.

You wanna believe that your government HAS EVER worked in the best interest of you...or America. Fine, you can live with that delusion all you want.

Click to expand...

If you were anywhere near correct living in the US would be the same as living in Syria or its ilk. For me it's not. We have money, two homes AZ & MI and a cash offer on a 3rd, etc. Am I one of the corrupt ones?

iliveonramen said:

Actually....Bush passed TARP and I considered it the one of the best actions of his Presidency. I was working at a brokerage firm when it happened...I remember the first time it failed and markets took a nose dive and people were panicky. When it passed markets rebounded (a bit) and there was a lot more confidence in the markets and financial institutions.

TARP and the bailouts arent' partisan hackary...it's doing what needs to be done...pragmatism...understanding economic realities.

A whole economic policy based on the idea that wealth going to the top raises all boats is a completely different thing.

Click to expand...

"Boats sold separately. Supplies are limited. Not all will qualify."

specklebang said:

....
If instead of these last 2 miserable Presidents we had/have, both of whom are only interested in stimulating the rich, they had simply sent every tax paying American a $10,000.00 Visa card with a 6 month expiration date, we would be booming again. Instead, we have given multi-million dollar bonuses to the creepy criminals in the banking, weapons and mercenary industries.

Click to expand...

If you made Obama the King he wouldn't go near as far as you recommend, but a lot further than he was allowed. Why is all, or just, the Presidents fault if the other branches of government we elected don't go along, but rather just make any real solution impossible.

DaveFagan said:

"Trickle Down" Is a Plutocratic Religion, Not an Economic Theory | Buzz Flash.org


Trickle Down" Is a Plutocratic Religion, Not an Economic Theory
"The economists and pundits are legion who have challenged the notion that the amassing of wealth by a privileged few results in more jobs being created in the US. After all, if this were the case - at a time the richer are becoming even richer - why did we nearly just reach a depression?"

Is the article correct?
Does "Trickle Down" kill USA jobs?
Is it an economic theory?

Click to expand...

LOL!

False premise. The rich are not richer. Does Mr. Buffett have more wealth today or a few years ago? Does Mr. Gates have more wealth today or a few years ago?



I understand what you are trying to do but it would help if you did your homework first then stated the question correctly.

But nice try

What if...? said:

"Boats sold separately. Supplies are limited. Not all will qualify."

Click to expand...

I think "those that start off with bigger boats rise the fastest and highest".

Trickle Down has been downright disastrous:

I have quite a few links, here is one I read the other day:

We’re More Unequal Than You Think by Andrew Hacker | The New York Review of Books

Poverty rates:

"Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us...pagewanted=all

Income Inequality:

"Since 1980, middle-class wages have largely stagnated and lower-class wages have declined, while the upper echelons of American society have seen a windfall. A study by University of California, Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez found that, as of 2007, the top decile of American earners pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917.""

15 Facts About U.S. Income Inequality That Everyone Should Know (CHARTS)

Wages average an increase of .1% growth

"The income story in America is deeply troubling. Inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers (a category that encompasses 80% of the workforce and leaves out higher-paid managers and supervisors) rose by an anemic 0.1% a year from 1979 to 2007, according to the EPI. A potent combination of economic and social forces has conspired to keep wages down for most workers with the exception of a brief period of white-hot economic growth in 1995-2000."

U.S. Wage Growth: The Downward Spiral - BusinessWeek