• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Is Trickle Down a Plutocratic religion or an Economic Theory

  • Trickle Down is sound economics

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Trickle Down is a fraud

    Votes: 21 87.5%

  • Trickle Down kills USA jobs

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • Trickle Down makes USA jobs

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

that might have some relevance if the richest few were that important.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Wow, as you explain it it's so simple. Oh, but I worked for a manufacturer. As we started to increase our volume I was assigned to moving or manufacturing to a maquiladoras in Mexico then to Taiwan. Then Taiwan started saying it could do our engineering at lower cost, so management let them. Then I and other engineers had to train them so they could have our jobs. I got the reward of travel to Mexico and Taiwan. My wife was an engineer also, we'er retired now. She was training Indians to do what were engineering jobs filled by Americans. You write that its so simple and that everyone knows, why don't I know if its so simple?
Click to expand...

Exactly. When it became too expensive to do business here, the investment and jobs and money went elsewhere. Taiwan wanted to do the job so the money would go there. Then they got to share the money with their family who spent the money in Taiwan. So, Taiwanese venders made money and so did their families. The Taiwanese vendor's sons and daughters benefited. It trickled down.

Purchasing provides economic benefit only if the seller/manufacturer is in the same economic region (because bottom up doesn't work). Manufacturing/selling benefits the economic region in which it resides (trickle down).
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
Exactly. When it became too expensive to do business here, the investment and jobs and money went elsewhere. Taiwan wanted to do the job so the money would go there. Then they got to share the money with their family who spent the money in Taiwan. So, Taiwanese venders made money and so did their families. The Taiwanese vendor's sons and daughters benefited. It trickled down.

Purchasing provides economic benefit only if the seller/manufacturer is in the same economic region (because bottom up doesn't work). Manufacturing/selling benefits the economic region in which it resides (trickle down).
Click to expand...
No, not exactly. Our unit costs, including labor cost portion, in Arizona were coming down as our volume was going up. But as the volume went up the total dollars that off shore vendors would quote became low enough that management went for it, their bonuses were tied to profit in absolute dollars. Of course the Taiwanese, Indians and Mexicans lied about their capabilities. The didn't actually know how to do the work. We also had to train them to do our jobs correctly. So, in my case, my divisions CEO bonuses went up, as did the owners of the offshore assembly firms and their employees and their new hires. What believers in trickle down assume is that is that the money trickles down and stays in the US, it doesn't in many cases. To compete, our local labor would have to work for about same unit labor cost as Taiwanese, Indians or Mexicans, that is just a few drops of trickle, no company paid health insurance, no vacations, 400 sq ft 'homes', etc.
To clarify the customers of our products stayed the same and were world wide.
 
Last edited:
GreenvilleGrows said:
When they gave every tax paying American money from where? And, if they're tax paying, why collect it and then give it to them again? Why not just let them keep it to begin with?

When we, as a country, have a trade surplus, our wealth increases. When we, as a country, have a trade deficit, our wealth decreases. We either make money and bring it home or someone else gets it. "Trickle down" economics works if you mean that when a large employer/manufacturer is able to make money, their employees make money, and the suppliers to the manufacturer and to the employees make money so their employees make money too, etc.

Everyone knows that if manufacturer is makes money, they hire more employees, and both the manufacturer and the employees all buy more stuff in the area.

However, if instead of investing and buying in our country, they invest and buy and hire in another country, the other country's wealth increases. If we are buying the project but reaping none of the "trickle down" then all we're doing is pouring our wealth into their citizens' (or governments') pockets.
Click to expand...
Oh, quit with all that logical crazy talk. :lol:
 
Hatuey said:
A strawman would imply that trickle down economics has never been advocated by free market advocates. Oh my:

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exaclty what you think that demonstrates. Calling free market economics "trickle down economics" is an illegitimate pejorative (in the technical sense) irrespective of who you are describing. Would you like me to link to someone calling Obama's economic approach "trickle up poverty"? we could wield that as equal proof that Obama supports pulling more and more people into the ranks of the poor, and believes that that is how his economic theory functions :roll:
 
cpwill said:
I'm not sure exaclty what you think that demonstrates. Calling free market economics "trickle down economics" is an illegitimate pejorative (in the technical sense) irrespective of who you are describing. Would you like me to link to someone calling Obama's economic approach "trickle up poverty"? we could wield that as equal proof that Obama supports pulling more and more people into the ranks of the poor, and believes that that is how his economic theory functions :roll:
Click to expand...
If you called the 'opposite' of "trickle down economics" "trickle up economics" that would be cool since both directions work to some degree and can and do operate simultaneously. But, as soon as you add the word "poverty" you've made it a pejorative. Please take your own advice. Then you can site examples of "trickle up economics" that do not work. Also, part of the trickle becomes a unit of labor that usually flows opposite the the direction of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom