Conservative's 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong according to study

[dullard]

Tell me, what do you think happens to money that's in the stock market or a bank?

(A) Money in the stock market for an IPO or (B) just money in the stock market? They are fundamentally different.

In option (B) money goes from one bank account to another bank account. Nothing fundamentally positive happens to the economy beyond the feel-good feeling we get from being able to buy/sell stocks. If person X buys Microsoft stock from person Y and later sells it to person Z, then Microsoft gets absolutely nothing from this ordeal. No one is hired, no growth occurs. All that happens is the person X now has more or less money than before.

In option (A) the company MIGHT take the money to invest and grow and hire people. Or, they MIGHT saddle the company with massive debt, cash out, sell it off and watch it burn. At least there is a good chance of a positive thing happening.

 

[dullard]

So the poor spend all of their money now, and if they get more money they'll spend all of that too?

On what? What will the poor spend that money on that they don't have now? Where will it come from? How many resources will it require to produce it? Who will make it?

Yes, the poor spend every cent they get. They spend it education so they can have better jobs, child care so they can go to work, health care so they don't take as many sick days, food so they don't get as sick in the first place, shelter so all of the above can happen, etc. Yes, they spend some on stupid things too (such as a tattoo is stupid for those who can't afford it, but at least that money goes right back into someone else's pocket and keeps the economy going). But if you look closely, not much is spent on stupid things since there isn't much to spend after food and shelter.

You are diverting the issue though. Money to the poor costs someone else money (taxpayers lose out). But so does 15% capital gains tax to the rich instead of ~35% (taxpayers lose out).

 

[JSt0rm]

So the poor spend all of their money now, and if they get more money they'll spend all of that too?

On what? What will the poor spend that money on that they don't have now? Where will it come from? How many resources will it require to produce it? Who will make it?

Who can answer those questions? It will have a ripple effect through our economy. All kinds of things will be bought. Im not saying to hand out $500 checks to all poor people and the economy will be saved Im just saying poor people spend all of their money. If poors made more money they would spend more.

Peak monetary happiness is 75k a year. After that we have diminished returns. Now not everyone should earn 75k a year but we should focus on helping people below that number not above it.

But if you want to believe in trickle down then show me how it works? Show me where it works?

If your position is fuck the government - rich people earned that money and shouldnt be taxed then cool. I find that argument better then "trickle down good" because its at least based in some reality.

 

[glenn1]

It doesn't scale to even a small state like Kansas? So what is it good for then? Intellectual masturbation?

I don't know, ask that question to someone who supports it the current environment. You do realize that conservative economics has more than one element and isn't just all tax cuts all the time I hope? Hell, if the 'correct' people were in office you might even support some of it like prudent spending, reducing reliance on deficit spending, and the other stuff that people like the noted fanatical right winger Mike Bloomberg supports, the damn facisct:

To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we've got one coming.

 

[TheSlamma]

why dont you answer my question? It was a question. Where do you fear "we" are taking you?

The Repukelicans:

1: Allowing outsourcing to every country that doesn't have human rights is okay then selling those products back to countries that have laws against those lack of rights giving that country an unfair advantage.
2: Environment doesn't matter, only profit.
3: Social issues like gay marriage
4: Useless drug wars
5: Free market where corporations are "people" who cannot serve prison time and no one goes to jail for fraud.
6: Wars with countries that couldn't even invade the Appalachian mountains with a handful of guys from the local militia, but trying to convince us they might take away our "freedom"

The Democrooks:

1: Tax and spend to the point we have no financial legs to stand on. (QE wiped so Dank can calm down)
2: Entitlement programs for people who do not reciprocate anything back into our system.
3: Environmental policies that actually hurt the planet more in the long run. (example: Energy Star appliances that take 3 cycles to do what only took 1 before thus using more energy in the long run)
4: Free services/licenses to illegal aliens instead of making them legal so they have to participate in the same laws and taxes we all are in.
5: Unquestioningly handing over more power to the government as if they are there to help and take care of you.
6: drone strikes on innocent children


I can go on, but now it's your turn to answer my question,. problem is you simply can't, you are a partisan hack and it's impossible for you to imagine people who are not on one side or the other. you have no idea what a moderate really is.

 

[JSt0rm]

The Repukelicans:

1: Allowing outsourcing to every country that doesn't have human rights is okay then selling those products back to countries that have laws against those lack of rights giving that country an unfair advantage.
2: Environment doesn't matter, only profit.
3: Social issues like gay marriage
4: Useless drug wars
5: Free market where corporations are "people" who cannot serve prison time and no one goes to jail for fraud.
6: Wars with countries that couldn't even invade the Appalachian mountains with a handful of guys from the local militia, but trying to convince us they might take away our "freedom"

The Democrooks:

1: Tax and spend to the point we have no financial legs to stand on, QE that just inflates our money into toilet paper and interest rates that make a savings account useless to have.
2: Entitlement programs for people who do not reciprocate anything back into our system.
3: Environmental policies that actually hurt the planet more in the long run. (example: Energy Star appliances that take 3 cycles to do what only took 1 before thus using more energy in the long run)
4: Free services/licenses to illegal aliens instead of making them legal so they have to participate in the same laws and taxes we all are in.
5: Unquestioningly handing over more power to the government as if they are there to help and take care of you.


I can go on, but now it's your turn to answer my question,. problem is you simply can't, you are a partisan hack and it's impossible for you to imagine people who are not on one side or the other. you have no idea what a moderate really is.

I agree on all republican points

The Democrooks:

1: Tax and spend to the point we have no financial legs to stand on, QE that just inflates our money into toilet paper and interest rates that make a savings account useless to have.

Others can comment on this but QE was a very good thing it turns out.


2: Entitlement programs for people who do not reciprocate anything back into our system.

Hungry people will kill you. We just went over this.

3: Environmental policies that actually hurt the planet more in the long run. (example: Energy Star appliances that take 3 cycles to do what only took 1 before thus using more energy in the long run).

I guess thats a fair point, if true. I havent looked into this at all.

4: Free services/licenses to illegal aliens instead of making them legal so they have to participate in the same laws and taxes we all are in.

Im pretty sure they still pay for the license. This allows them to get insurance and thats important.

5: Unquestioningly handing over more power to the government as if they are there to help and take care of you.

This is so broad as to have almost no meaning.

 

[TheSlamma]

I agree on all republican points

As I stated party hack and you STILL didn't answer my question

The Democrooks:

1: Tax and spend to the point we have no financial legs to stand on, QE that just inflates our money into toilet paper and interest rates that make a savings account useless to have.

Others can comment on this but QE was a very good thing it turns out.

QE isn't helping and you didn't address Tax and Spend and our abysmal interest rates that are supposedly keeping this place "afloat"

2: Entitlement programs for people who do not reciprocate anything back into our system.

Hungry people will kill you. We just went over this.

They can be put to work and their food stamps limited to only allowing the purchase of basic foods like fruits, vegetables and baking goods, no cigs or twinkies.

3: Environmental policies that actually hurt the planet more in the long run. (example: Energy Star appliances that take 3 cycles to do what only took 1 before thus using more energy in the long run).

I guess thats a fair point, if true. I havent looked into this at all.

Of course you haven't looked into it, it would make your party you have your head so far up their ass look bad. Hey if they SAY they love the planet that means they do right?

4: Free services/licenses to illegal aliens instead of making them legal so they have to participate in the same laws and taxes we all are in.

Im pretty sure they still pay for the license. This allows them to get insurance and thats important.

partial answer yet again, They need to pay taxes for our roads, our medical system they take advantage of and then just skip out on the bills of, the schools they send their kids to. But I'm glad you admitted you have no interest in making them legal.

5: Unquestioningly handing over more power to the government as if they are there to help and take care of you.

This is so broad as to have almost no meaning.

It has plenty of meaning, you just are so indoctrinated into the democrat logic of "Government can do no wrong" you can't conceive of them ever doing anything bad with the money they constantly ask for.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The Repukelicans vs. The Democrooks

You missed a pretty crucial point that applies to both; they're in the pocket of the big money mega-corporations and don't really care about trying to enact policies that benefit the vast majority of Americans unless it can also make the people at the very top even richer.

 

[TheSlamma]

You missed a pretty crucial point that applies to both; they're in the pocket of the big money mega-corporations and don't really care about trying to enact policies that benefit the vast majority of Americans unless it can also make the people at the very top even richer.

It's funny you say that, I was actually going to do a BOTH category, but I decided the person I was talking to would have no idea what I was talking about and just try to figure out the playground child way of saying, "No my party doesn't do that, just the other one does!"

But yes I agree 100%

 

[zinfamous]

It's been known since the time Reagan still bunked with his pet monkey, yet the myth persists.

go figure.

 

[glenn1]

2: Entitlement programs for people who do not reciprocate anything back into our system.

Hungry people will kill you. We just went over this.

If you want to cower in fear of the mean old poors who are going to lynch you be my guest, but do it hiding in your closet rather than hiding behind stupid economic policies that incent people to threaten violence to gain welfare concessions. That's the mark of an asshole who doesn't even have the balls to call the bluff of those threats. It didn't work during the Reign of Terror, it didn't work for the Romans and their "panem et circesen" and it won't work now.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's funny you say that, I was actually going to do a BOTH category, but I decided the person I was talking to would have no idea what I was talking about and just try to figure out the playground child way of saying, "No my party doesn't do that, just the other one does!"

But yes I agree 100%

Keep insulting buddy.

You never ASKED me a question.

I can go on, but now it's your turn to answer my question,. problem is you simply can't, you are a partisan hack and it's impossible for you to imagine people who are not on one side or the other. you have no idea what a moderate really is.

What is the question?

Does a moderate think trickle down economics works? I dont think so. And thats what this thread is about.

 

[JSt0rm]

If you want to cower in fear of the mean old poors who are going to lynch you be my guest, but do it hiding in your closet rather than hiding behind stupid economic policies that incent people to threaten violence to gain welfare concessions. That's the mark of an asshole who doesn't even have the balls to call the bluff of those threats. It didn't work during the Reign of Terror, it didn't work for the Romans and their "panem et circesen" and it won't work now.

see my post here : http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37489926&postcount=89

My point is society finds more benefit from feeding people who cant feed themselves then it does in having 50 million hungry people loose. Even red states do this.

Nobody is threatening violence for welfare but hungry people will do violence to get food and something like the french revolution shows us that if the poors get hungry enough they will cut off your head.

 

[TheSlamma]

Keep insulting buddy.

You never ASKED me a question.



What is the question?

Does a moderate think trickle down economics works? I dont think so. And thats what this thread is about.

Post number 95,

and yep I will keep insulting all democrats and republicans. We really don't need your parties AT ALL. I can give the republicans the advantage in one way, they will tell you to your FACE they don't care about the poor and love corporations, Dems lie about it. Democrats love for corporations is as true as Wesley and Buttercups, and their support for the poor? That is a middle class problem.

 

[JSt0rm]

"In what way did I ever indicate I would have a problem with higher taxes on the rich?"

That was the important question? Ok you are cool with taxes on the rich.

Bravo.

Now do you think trickle down economics works?

 

[JSt0rm]

so he goes offline. Trickle down. lol.

 

[TheSlamma]

"In what way did I ever indicate I would have a problem with higher taxes on the rich?"

That was the important question? Ok you are cool with taxes on the rich.

Bravo.

Now do you think trickle down economics works?

Post #17 numbnut

 

[TheSlamma]

so he goes offline. Trickle down. lol.

Don't get cocky, you are only capable of getting served.

 

[JSt0rm]

Post #17 numbnut

"One of the most useless presidents this country ever had even knew it was complete garbage (Lyndon B. Johnson), so VERY old news and even a moron like him could see it."

^^ that is your answer to the question about trickle down working or not?

Don't get cocky, you are only capable of getting served.

Sure. You are a master.

 

[TheSlamma]

"One of the most useless presidents this country ever had even knew it was complete garbage (Lyndon B. Johnson), so VERY old news and even a moron like him could see it."

^^ that is your answer to the question about trickle down working or not?

It pretty clearly states that any idiot should know that trickle down doesn't work. Even people stupid enough to get us into useless wars like Vietnam.

Edit: Or do you think the Vietnam war was a good move? Oh wait, Johnson was a Democrat in name so you have to defend him, I forgot.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Tell me, what do you think happens to money that's in the stock market or a bank?

As dullard has said, nothing happens if it's put in a stock market. Say Person A has $5K to invest. Person A buys 100 shares of some ETF for $5K from person B. Before Person A had $5K cash and Person B had 100 shares, now Person A has 100 shares and Person B has $5K. Absolutely nothing has changed.

If it goes into bank, then theoretically the bank now has capital to loan out to whoever needs a loan. Theoretically that can stimulate the economy if, and this is a pretty big if, if there is demand for that loan. Unfortunately, that demand hinges on the overall economy, if most of the people are doing poorly like they do right now, nobody is going to be taking out loans, so once again that money is useless. It just sits in the bank. Why do you think interest rates are so low right now and there is almost no inflation? It's because there is no demand for the loans, so interest rates have to stay low to make loans more attractive.

So no, storing excess money in stocks or bank does absolutely nothing right now.

 

[BoberFett]

(A) Money in the stock market for an IPO or (B) just money in the stock market? They are fundamentally different.

In option (B) money goes from one bank account to another bank account. Nothing fundamentally positive happens to the economy beyond the feel-good feeling we get from being able to buy/sell stocks. If person X buys Microsoft stock from person Y and later sells it to person Z, then Microsoft gets absolutely nothing from this ordeal. No one is hired, no growth occurs. All that happens is the person X now has more or less money than before.

In option (A) the company MIGHT take the money to invest and grow and hire people. Or, they MIGHT saddle the company with massive debt, cash out, sell it off and watch it burn. At least there is a good chance of a positive thing happening.

As dullard has said, nothing happens if it's put in a stock market. Say Person A has $5K to invest. Person A buys 100 shares of some ETF for $5K from person B. Before Person A had $5K cash and Person B had 100 shares, now Person A has 100 shares and Person B has $5K. Absolutely nothing has changed.

If it goes into bank, then theoretically the bank now has capital to loan out to whoever needs a loan. Theoretically that can stimulate the economy if, and this is a pretty big if, if there is demand for that loan. Unfortunately, that demand hinges on the overall economy, if most of the people are doing poorly like they do right now, nobody is going to be taking out loans, so once again that money is useless. It just sits in the bank. Why do you think interest rates are so low right now and there is almost no inflation? It's because there is no demand for the loans, so interest rates have to stay low to make loans more attractive.

So no, storing excess money in stocks or bank does absolutely nothing right now.

I don't have time to post more now, all I'll say is Holy Economics Fail Batman!.

 

[JSt0rm]

It pretty clearly states that any idiot should know that trickle down doesn't work. Even people stupid enough to get us into useless wars like Vietnam.

You could of just said that.

Edit: Or do you think the Vietnam war was a good move? Oh wait, Johnson was a Democrat in name so you have to defend him, I forgot.

And amazingly the babyboomers who fought in that war put us in another crappy war when they were in charge.

 

[TheSlamma]

You could of just said that.



And amazingly the babyboomers who fought in that war put us in another crappy war when they were in charge.

Actually it's perfectly fine that I painted a picture using a real life person and example. Many valid arguments are made using this timeless formula.

Re: Iraq 1 and 2 wars, Hey a rational thought I agree with you on.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

And amazingly the babyboomers who fought in that war put us in another crappy war when they were in charge.

Who exactly do you mean? Cheney and Wolfowitz, who received draft deferments? Bush, who served in a unit that never saw action in Vietnam? Rumsfeld, who completed his Navy service several years before the Vietnam war started? Of the people responsible for getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan, only Colin Powell saw any time in Vietnam. It's more than a little disingenuous to put that on every baby boomer.