Economy Questions

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Questions:

1. If the super rich don't get taxed as much, do they really reinvest their money and help drive the economy? AKA the trickle down effect?

2. Is it really better for the overall economy to tax corporations more?

3. Does more money in the pockets of the super rich help the overall economy more or money in the middle class folks?

4. Are there graphs or data that show economic growth between republican presidents and democratic presidents?

Your
1. Of course it does. But to what degree I don't know its never really bothered me .How much money they have . How they got it thats a whole other matter, Who buys the really big luxury stuff. Who builds luxury homes , Seems to me thats job creation. Seems to me thats trikel down , To what degree I don't know, Clearly a 10 year old understands this simple concept , Its not like a revelation.

2. The honest true answer is not to have corperations Its a road that leads to greed and deception treason and terrorism

3. The only possiable way forward is no class and rank does not have its privilages. Pure socialism- An impossiable dream for our race(earthling)

4 In todays world if their are opposing powers these types of charts are useless they create conflict
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
The concept you are referring to is economic inequality. This figure in economics is called the Gini Index. There is a ton of data on this for every nation from about the 1950's forward (and further back for nations that were keeping good records).

If you compare the Gini Index to economic growth, a lower number (more equality) gives you a stronger economy with greater growth and lower inflation.

Edit: I accidentally a word.

Link to most current Gini Indexes (higher is less equal, lower is more equal), the US is expected to sharply rise this year.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gin_ind-economy-gini-index

The last time i measured the gini index for the United States was for a macroeconomics and policy project, 2010. 47.8.

Where did you get Gini Index is correlated to economic growth and lower inflation? From your link, Ethiopia, Greece, Pakistan all have much lower Gini index than the US, and I wouldn't call they have better economy than the US.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Where did you get Gini Index is correlated to economic growth and lower inflation? From your link, Ethiopia, Greece, Pakistan all have much lower Gini index than the US, and I wouldn't call they have better economy than the US.

The Gini index measures equality... So if everyone has a nickel, they'd have a gini index of a perfectly equal society.

It isn't a perfect measure by any means, but it is a general rule of thumb.

and actually... they are doing better than us from a growth perspective
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/gdp-growth
http://af.reuters.com/article/ethiopiaNews/idAFL5E8HE7IL20120614

Greece is not, but everyone knows their story at this point.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
The Gini index measures equality... So if everyone has a nickel, they'd have a gini index of a perfectly equal society.

It isn't a perfect measure by any means, but it is a general rule of thumb.

and actually... they are doing better than us from a growth perspective
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/gdp-growth
http://af.reuters.com/article/ethiopiaNews/idAFL5E8HE7IL20120614

Greece is not, but everyone knows their story at this point.

I know what Gini index is. You are saying as a rule of thumb communism is the best for economic growth and prosperity? Really?
 

kia75

Senior member
Oct 30, 2005
468
0
71
Because gold is a product. If you buy gold and hold on to it yourself, you've purchased a product, and your money now belongs to some other party that can do with it as it wishes (generally, this means investing.)

If you "buy" gold and the bank "holds" the gold for you, you don't really think that they set aside a specific chunk of gold for you, with your name on it, do you? Of course not. They utilize the money that you send them to invest, and if you ever withdraw, they send you an appropriate amount of gold, and then replenish that gold for other people who may eventually withdraw.

You keep on saying "investing" "investing". What definition of the word are you using?

I was under the impression that you were using "investing" as in financial investing. Putting money somewhere that will make you more money. i.e. buying stocks, bonds, comic books, etc in the hope that you can later sell the stocks, bonds, or comic books for more money, earning you a nice profit.

Therefore investing in gold is helpful for you, but does nothing for the economy, since the capitol used is now tied up in yellow rocks. This is the investing that rich people tend to do. This sort of investing, while good for the rich people is bad for the economy because that money now becomes tied up in gold or stocks or bond and doesn't trickle through. Again, its smart to invest your money, otherwise a tragedy could happen (lose your job, major expenditure like hospital bill, etc) that you wouldn't be able to handle with steady paycheck. But Investing is bad for the economy because that money is now out of circulation. And yes, you can "invest" your money in the bank, and the bank can lend your money out, thus creating new money, but at the moment it isn't happening as much as we need it to. Skip to the end of this post to find out why.


In economics, investing means something different and specific. I'm stealing the definition from wikipedia but investment in economics means "the amount purchased per unit time of goods which are not consumed but are to be used for future production (i.e. capital)." I think this is the type of investment you mean by "investing", and this is for the most part good for the economy. This is stuff like buying a new widget-o-matic that allows me to make twice as many widgets as I did before, hiring a new salesman to sell widgets, teaching a widget-making employee how to make widgets better\faster, researching new ways to make widgets, etc.

Rich people don't do this sort of investing because... frankly they don't know how to do this. Does McDonalds need more people to handle the lunch time rush? Would buying a new fry cooker help profits? I don't know, and giving me 100 million dollars won't change the fact that I still don't know if a new fry cooker would improve profits for Mcdonalds.

And yes, Venture capitals is an example of a rich person that does this, but most rich people aren't venture capitalists.

You can't buy a million shares of Apple unless someone else is willing to sell those million shares of Apple. That person now has a tidy sum of money he ends up investing elsewhere. How doesn't that help the economy?

Unless the company is selling NEW Stock, buying stock is the equivalent of buying yellow rocks in the hope that they'll be worth more in the future. Only when the company releases NEW stock does the company get a share and economic investment takes place.

The person who sold you the stocks is a million dollars richer, but it's no guarantee that the million dollars will improve the economy. If he just uses it to buy another million dollars worth of stock then the economy didn't improve at all.

Assuming that you could just buy an infinite number of shares of whatever company, that company will who now has infinite capital will spend it to grow the business, thereby helping the economy. If the company just sits on the capital and does nothing, well, then there's no earnings for investors and they'll stop investing and pull their money out of the company.

Investing isn't infinite. Let's pretend we have a company called Costumes r Us, which specializes in costumes. It's September so I invest a few million dollars in Costumes R Us and open up a store in the mall. Its now October and I'm seeing amazing profits. It's now November, do I invest my profits in a 2nd mall store? Expand my business? No, because the demand isn't there for costume shops in November. I can invest a Million dollars into Costumes R Us, I can invest a Billion dollars in Costumes R Us. No matter how much I invest profits are going to be anemic after October in the costume business.


That's the issue we're having right now. Small companies are flush with cash, Banks have tons of money to lend, but no one to lend it to because the demand is gone. A company could hire 100 new widget-makers, but unless more people start buying widgets, hiring more widget-makers is a losing proposition.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
The problem is as others have made the point so don't need to is that the economy and it's needs are dynamic. Right now we need more money in the hands of people who create demand.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Sure, there's a trickle down effect by giving the super-rich tax breaks. However, it doesn't necessarily trickle down to US citizens. Like during the Reagan era, there's nothing stopping the super-rich from investing that extra income overseas.

As drebo said above, the US economy is not a closed system.
 

master7045

Senior member
Jul 15, 2005
729
0
76
I'd just like to say, very interesting arguments back and forth. It's refreshing to read intelligent (for the most part) arguments back n' forth. Too bad our elections aren't like this...

My .02

1. If the super rich don't get taxed as much, do they really reinvest their money and help drive the economy? AKA the trickle down effect?

2. Is it really better for the overall economy to tax corporations more?

3. Does more money in the pockets of the super rich help the overall economy more or money in the middle class folks?

4. Are there graphs or data that show economic growth between republican presidents and democratic presidents?

1. It's hard to say, Imagine this scenario. I buy a brand new S class Mercedes Benz. The salesman makes a commission and has more money now. He goes down the street next week to buy $5 lunch instead of bringing a lunch to work which (for sake of argument), costs $3.00. The sandwich shop owner now has a few extra bucks and gives his workers a bonus. Good for everyone, it's hard to bust that logic. Now the question is, does me buying a new Mercedes help the economy more vs sandwich shop employee buying a itunes song? The Mercedes cost more, so yes, right? - I don't know the answer to this question obviously, just adding fuel to the argument.

2. Again as others have said, if the taxes go to improving roads so it's easier/cheaper for me to travel to work, then yes. If those taxes go to my new assistant who is my cousin and doesn't do anything, but sit on his butt without adding any actual value, then no, it doesn't help. The taxes have to be used wisely. Answer "what is wise, government spending", and you sir are our next POTUS.

3. See #1

4. No idea, I work in IT, not macro economics.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
I know what Gini index is. You are saying as a rule of thumb communism is the best for economic growth and prosperity? Really?

Everyone does not make the same income in communism.

Pay rates are set by the state for each particular job, all doctors with the same level of experience make the same amount. This does not mean that doctors and botanists and janitors all make the same yearly income. There is still substantial economic inequality. Actually, Russia is headed back in the direction of Communism, and i've just read an article recently that Moscow is now the city with the most millionaires.

The gini index of present-day Russia is similar to the United States. Unemployment rates are also similar.


Also because you are removing variables with full-on communism, the Gini Index is no longer really a valid measure.
 
Last edited:

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
It's hard to say, Imagine this scenario. I buy a brand new S class Mercedes Benz. The salesman makes a commission and has more money now. He goes down the street next week to buy $5 lunch instead of bringing a lunch to work which (for sake of argument), costs $3.00. The sandwich shop owner now has a few extra bucks and gives his workers a bonus. Good for everyone, it's hard to bust that logic. Now the question is, does me buying a new Mercedes help the economy more vs sandwich shop employee buying a itunes song? The Mercedes cost more, so yes, right? - I don't know the answer to this question obviously, just adding fuel to the argument.

This is known as "residual effects of spending" or "multipliers" in economics.

We talk about how and where dollars go and see how "effective" the various types of spending are. Forbes did a nice piece of the various techniques for government stimulus which i believe was backed by Moody's as well. This theory can apply to many many different types of spending though, not just government stimulus.

I want to play devil's advocate with your scenario and present this one.

Richie Richguy is given a nice tax break from Uncle Sam. Richie takes some of his money and buys an S-class creating the same economic activity in your example. He takes the rest of his extra income and invests it in building a new clothing factory in Bangladesh and purchases some bonds for Nike to build a new factory in Vietnam. What share of the said tax break actually benefited the American economy?

Also, the effectiveness of the various types of stimulus. (see also, why the Bush Tax Cuts should expire for those who do not need the money to make ends meet)

zandi.gif


Here is a critique of those numbers by the non-partisan congressional budget office (CBO).

arra-stimulus-multipliers-cbo-maec.png
 
Last edited:

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Trickle down economics is a scam, always has been and always will be. Even David Stockman, one of the guys in the 80s that pushed it so heavily, says it has ruined our economy.

Investing is nothing more than forgoing spending today for a greater amount back tomorrow. However, too much wealth at the top creates mal-investment and asset bubbles. Take for example the .bombs driven by venture capitalists and people trying to make a quick buck in IPOs. Most "normal" people didn't get access to IPOs. Another example of this is oil, hedge funds poured into oil post .bombs and credit crunch which is a huge reason for the ramp-up in oil. How has that helped the economy?

The type of investing wealthy people do do not increase the velocity of money. The velocity is far more important to the economy than anything else because it creates a wealth multiplier. This is doubly true for equities...why?

Because the vast majority of people who invest in equities are either wealthy or institutional investors. Institutionals being pensions, 401ks (mutuals...etc), and insurance companies. That money is all imputed into the economy once (at IPO), otherwise it is just shifted around from one person to another. So really you aren't getting any value from old investing, especially considering the wealthy are just moving from one investment to another.

However, a middle class person with more money will spend that money which will result in a business hiring more people who will spend more money...etc.

As far as double taxation - income is income whether it is derived as a primary or secondary affect.
 

master7045

Senior member
Jul 15, 2005
729
0
76
This is known as "residual effects of spending" or "multipliers" in economics.

We talk about how and where dollars go and see how "effective" the various types of spending are. Forbes did a nice piece of the various techniques for government stimulus which i believe was backed by Moody's as well. This theory can apply to many many different types of spending though, not just government stimulus.

I want to play devil's advocate with your scenario and present this one.

Richie Richguy is given a nice tax break from Uncle Sam. Richie takes some of his money and buys an S-class creating the same economic activity in your example. He takes the rest of his extra income and invests it in building a new clothing factory in Bangladesh and purchases some bonds for Nike to build a new factory in Vietnam. What share of the said tax break actually benefited the American economy?

Also, the effectiveness of the various types of stimulus. (see also, why the Bush Tax Cuts should expire for those who do not need the money to make ends meet)

zandi.gif


Here is a critique of those numbers by the non-partisan congressional budget office (CBO).

arra-stimulus-multipliers-cbo-maec.png

Very good point, and that is why I picked a S-class from MB. Although the US salesperson got the comission, the bulk of the profit from the sale goes to a company owned and operated outside of the US. That being said, I do recognize that there are MB offices all over the states as well which employ US workers. Ugh, this is why economics is so confusing, there are so many gray lines. Nothing is black and white anymore.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Very good point, and that is why I picked a S-class from MB. Although the US salesperson got the comission, the bulk of the profit from the sale goes to a company owned and operated outside of the US. That being said, I do recognize that there are MB offices all over the states as well which employ US workers. Ugh, this is why economics is so confusing, there are so many gray lines. Nothing is black and white anymore.

You picked an S-Class because you wanted to send the money overseas rather than keeping it in the US?
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
You picked an S-Class because you wanted to send the money overseas rather than keeping it in the US?

He picked the S-Class in his example above because he wanted to showcase how a lot economic activity is global for the upper class.

He did not personally buy an S-Class specifically to send money overseas in real life.
 

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,027
0
76
He picked the S-Class in his example above because he wanted to showcase how a lot economic activity is global for the upper class.

He did not personally buy an S-Class specifically to send money overseas in real life.

So wouldn't the best thing to buy be food and services?
 

master7045

Senior member
Jul 15, 2005
729
0
76
So wouldn't the best thing to buy be food and services?

I honestly don't think you can generalize like that at all any more. "Most" food is produced outside of the US. Think Latin & South America for your fruits and veggies. Beef/chicken & dairy is mostly produced in the US, if I had to generalize. Services is a complete toss up. Local services like your dry-cleaners & laundromats, sure help the local economy, but on a larger scale (accounting firms, banking institutions, consultants, etc) are not necessary based in the US, most are as our economy is a service industry now, but just throwing out some examples. Lets look at the airline industry, sure Southwest is a US based company, but where do they buy their planes from? Airbus, Boeing? I know Southwest isn't the best example as they usually buy used planes, but substitute your favorite US airline and the analogy holds true.
Also, I didn't really buy a S Class MB, although I sure wouldn't mind one if I had the money.
 

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,027
0
76
I honestly don't think you can generalize like that at all any more. "Most" food is produces outside of the US. Think Latin & South America for your fruits and veggies. Beef/chicken & dairy is mostly produced in the US, if I had to generalize. Services is a complete toss up. Local services like your dry-cleaners & laundromats, sure help the local economy, but on a larger scale (accounting firms, banking institutions, consultants, etc) are not necessary based in the US, most are as our economy is a service industry now, but just throwing out some examples. Just for example, look at the airline industry, sure Southwest is a US based company, but where do they buy their planes from? Airbus, Boeing? I know Southwest isn't the best example as they usually buy used planes, but substitute your favorite US airline.
Also, I didn't really buy a S Class MB, although I sure wouldn't mind one if I had the money.

:eek:

I thought you guys grew more of your produce at home. Especially meat and grains...

What about In-N-Out? Don't they have that thing about everything being only a day's drive away?
 

master7045

Senior member
Jul 15, 2005
729
0
76
:eek:

I thought you guys grew more of your produce at home. Especially meat and grains...

What about In-N-Out? Don't they have that thing about everything being only a day's drive away?

Some restaurants do make it a point to use local/home grown produce/ingredients. But most of our supermarkets (Wal-Mart anyone?) have their produce isle packed with the cheapest stuff they can find, which usually comes from different countries. Labor is so much cheaper in other countries that it's cheaper to fly the food in before it's ripe and truck it to it's final destination rather than grow it here. Another national restaurant chain that touts the locally sourced produce is Chipotle, which I think is great. I'd love for more places to offer locally grown stuff, but I am a solid middle classman and I also like cheap stuff too.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
He picked the S-Class in his example above because he wanted to showcase how a lot economic activity is global for the upper class.

He did not personally buy an S-Class specifically to send money overseas in real life.

I wasn't paying attention.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Everyone does not make the same income in communism.

Pay rates are set by the state for each particular job, all doctors with the same level of experience make the same amount. This does not mean that doctors and botanists and janitors all make the same yearly income. There is still substantial economic inequality. Actually, Russia is headed back in the direction of Communism, and i've just read an article recently that Moscow is now the city with the most millionaires.

The gini index of present-day Russia is similar to the United States. Unemployment rates are also similar.


Also because you are removing variables with full-on communism, the Gini Index is no longer really a valid measure.

And this translates into mediocre workers riding on the backs of those are clearly superior in their abilities and skills. Other than a passion for the type of work a person is doing there is no other incentivizing reason to even try to be the best in your field of work when your only reward is earning exactly the same wage as the slacker standing next to you in the workplace.
 

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,027
0
76
And this translates into mediocre workers riding on the backs of those are clearly superior in their abilities and skills. Other than a passion for the type of work a person is doing there is no other incentivizing reason to even try to be the best in your field of work when your only reward is earning exactly the same wage as the slacker standing next to you in the workplace.

And that's why Communism doesn't work. It's a brilliant idea if you have the mindset for it, but humans don't.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Trickle down economics is a scam, always has been and always will be. Even David Stockman, one of the guys in the 80s that pushed it so heavily, says it has ruined our economy.

Investing is nothing more than forgoing spending today for a greater amount back tomorrow. However, too much wealth at the top creates mal-investment and asset bubbles. Take for example the .bombs driven by venture capitalists and people trying to make a quick buck in IPOs. Most "normal" people didn't get access to IPOs. Another example of this is oil, hedge funds poured into oil post .bombs and credit crunch which is a huge reason for the ramp-up in oil. How has that helped the economy?

The type of investing wealthy people do do not increase the velocity of money. The velocity is far more important to the economy than anything else because it creates a wealth multiplier. This is doubly true for equities...why?

Because the vast majority of people who invest in equities are either wealthy or institutional investors. Institutionals being pensions, 401ks (mutuals...etc), and insurance companies. That money is all imputed into the economy once (at IPO), otherwise it is just shifted around from one person to another. So really you aren't getting any value from old investing, especially considering the wealthy are just moving from one investment to another.

However, a middle class person with more money will spend that money which will result in a business hiring more people who will spend more money...etc.

As far as double taxation - income is income whether it is derived as a primary or secondary affect.

This is bullshit. The housing market bubble, the student loan bubble, etc all have the hand of government and its fingerprints on them. Mal-investments in the economy as whole only occur when government allows cheap and easy to attain credit backed up with a Federal stamp of assurance to pollute the markets which allows banks and investors make these mal-investments without much fear of repercussion. It has nothing to do with the amount of wealthy held by one person. I guarantee you that wealthy people are very diligent in ensuring that any money they earn which is not given a guarantee by the government is well spent in solid and safe investments.
 
Last edited:

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
This is bullshit. The housing market bubble, the student loan bubble, etc all have the hand of government and its fingerprints on them. Mal-investments in the economy as whole only occur when government allows cheap and easy to attain credit backed up with a Federal stamp of assurance to pollute the markets which allows banks and investors make these mal-investments without much fear of repercussion. It has nothing to do with the amount of wealthy held by one person. I guarantee you that wealthy people are very diligent in ensuring that any money they earn which is not given a guarantee by the government is well spent in solid and safe investments.

Yeah, countrywide was such a user of government borrowed money. So was Indymac and Wamu and Wachovia. I guess all of those CDO managers and hedge funds that bought into it were government supported. I guess WestLB, Hypo-Re and others were the same.

I guess that hedge funds buying into oil because speculation in that area has led to a huge amount of gains or double levered gold funds.

Nobody was making shit mortgages or other loans because they thought the government would bail them out. That's a myth. They made them because they thought they were infallible and that they thought they couldn't make a wrong decision.

I worked for a major bank that thought this about their credit card portfolio. I had arguments with coworkers over lunch in 2005 that the housing market was going to collapse. They dismissed that as pure doomsdayer fantasy, these were not low level people, they were people who influenced the treasury, liquidity strategy, capital and ultimately lending at a major company.

What is wrong with your theory is that you think the market is efficient or has some form of EMH without your supposed government influence. You are 100% wrong.

Where you are also wrong is that the worst abuses had absolutely nothing to do with the Fed or the government. Liar loans and teaser loans worked *around* payments. Interest rates didn't matter. This is doubly so since the worst of these loans and the worst securitized vintages were created when the Fed was *RAISING* rates.
 
Last edited:

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
1. Where do you think banks are supposed to get the money they loan to other people? When a person has money in a savings account or money market account, that's an investment. The rich don't keep their money in a mattress.
.

Wow, this might have been accurate...in 1950.

Thats not how it works at all, not in today's mega-bank world.

But if the OP wants a good easy read about how finance works, may I humbly suggest this:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ascent-Mon.../dp/1594201927