If trickle down economics no working, will trickle up economics be gooder?

[brainhulk]

is giving mo money to the plebeians the answer?

 

[Matt1970]

poal?

 

[soulcougher73]

Of course. You give people who spend more of their money, more of their own money they will spend it. Thus creating demand for goods, thus creating more jobs to meet said demand. And their are a lot more poor people than rich.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Well, the "job creators" don't create jobs for shits and giggles. They create jobs in response to increased demand for the goods and services they produce. With few exceptions, increased demand comes from the poor and the middle class (they don't already have everything they want and need like the rich). They amount of money the poor and middle class have to spend is in direct proportion to the demand. More money = more demand = more jobs. Each new job creates more more money to fuel demand, contributing to the cycle.

 

[nehalem256]

is giving mo money to the plebeians the answer?

And where do you intend to get this money?

Of course. You give people who spend more of their money, more of their own money they will spend it. Thus creating demand for goods, thus creating more jobs to meet said demand. And their are a lot more poor people than rich.

Which works great until someone needs capital to put up a new factory. Unfortunately you took all the money away from the people who could build that factory.

The correct answer is you need balance. In the current situation we are facing a lack of demand and so trickle down economics will not work.

 

[dank69]

...


Which works great until someone needs capital to put up a new factory. Unfortunately you took all the money away from the people who could build that factory.

The correct answer is you need balance. In the current situation we are facing a lack of demand and so trickle down economics will not work.

Oh he did, did he? He took ALL the money?

 

[soulcougher73]

And where do you intend to get this money?



Which works great until someone needs capital to put up a new factory. Unfortunately you took all the money away from the people who could build that factory.

The correct answer is you need balance. In the current situation we are facing a lack of demand and so trickle down economics will not work.

Trickle down never works because it relies on the false premise of we can always create demand for some widget we want people to buy. That is just not true. Supply side economics has so many holes they should just call it Sieve Economics.

And were not taking away all the rich peoples money. They will still be filty rich regardless.

 

[nehalem256]

Trickle down never works because it relies on the false premise of we can always create demand for some widget we want people to buy. That is just not true. Supply side economics has so many holes they should just call it Sieve Economics.

And were not taking away all the rich peoples money. They will still be filty rich regardless.

I think the problem is that the only case I can come up with for supply side economics working is in an export based economy. Which the US clearly is not.

 

[Jaskalas]

Of course. You give people who spend more of their money, more of their own money they will spend it. Thus creating demand for goods, thus creating more jobs to meet said demand. And their are a lot more poor people than rich.

Print them some money, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[diesbudt]

Trickle down, requires companies to "play ball" and create the jobs and events to allow money to flow downwards. Otherwise all that money did was make the top people of companies richer.

Trickle up, requries the people purchasing to cause inhcrease demand by "follow the rules". Because spending any extra money on Illegal substances or just saving it in a savings account does nothing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We've tried trickle up economics for the past 4 years and our economy continues to struggle. I say no.

 

[soulcougher73]

Print them some money, what could possibly go wrong?

No one said print them money. But tax the middle class less to give them more money to spend that they earned by working to energize the economy.

 

[Texashiker]

And where do you intend to get this money?

If the federal reserve can print money for the banks, why cant the federal reserve print money for the people?

Bob down the street needs 1.5 million to cover gambling losses. If the federal reserve treated people like banks, we would all get blank checks. Bob would get his 1.5 million with no questions asked.

 

[soulcougher73]

We've tried trickle up economics for the past 4 years and our economy continues to struggle. I say no.

Yeah except for that part where its better now than it was 4 years ago with trickle down. But other than that..yeah.

 

[diesbudt]

Yeah except for that part where its better now than it was 4 years ago with trickle down. But other than that..yeah.

My feelings on this are...

If an economy is weak or recovering, trickle up works better, because it can help recover and strengthen the economy faster with businesses demand increasing (along with profits) meaning more jobs made.

However once an economy has hit its full upswing and is strong, I believe trickle down works better to keep the economy that strong for as long as possible, since once demand starts to go (as people no longer need to spend with a better economy) this helps secure the jobs that companies have added longer.


Right this moment? We still need to do trickle up.

 

[lotus503]

We've tried trickle up economics for the past 4 years and our economy continues to struggle. I say no.

No we haven't, a demand centric economy can't work when our GDP is based on consumption to the tune of %70 and we have no manufacturing base.

Say's law is wrong you do not create demand simply by creating supply.

 

[emperus]

Poal? Gooder? huh?

 

[Juddog]

Poor people tend to spend their money immediately, which keeps it in circulation in the economy. Rich people tend to hoard money, so giving them more money doesn't really do much besides make them richer. Poor people generally are bad at managing money, and live week to week, so basically money that keeps them afloat is fed back into the economy immediately and has a much quicker boosting effect.

 

[lotus503]

Poor people tend to spend their money immediately, which keeps it in circulation in the economy. Rich people tend to hoard money, so giving them more money doesn't really do much besides make them richer. Poor people generally are bad at managing money, and live week to week, so basically money that keeps them afloat is fed back into the economy immediately and has a much quicker boosting effect.

Not to mention job creators don't create them because they are nice guys and want to trickle down their money.

Jobs are created in most cases based on actual demand for goods or services.

That's why I laugh out loud when someone says business's are not hiring due to uncertainty. It's a cop out to mask the lack of hiring is because there is a lack of demand.

 

[Timorous]

Which works great until someone needs capital to put up a new factory. Unfortunately you took all the money away from the people who could build that factory.

Well surely if more people are buying more goods which is increasing demand which requires more jobs then the people who can afford to buy factories will be getting more money because the businesses they own/run are doing better and are making more money.

Even if they have a slightly higher % rate of tax the extra income from the increased sales should if the system is balanced properly mean they have more after tax money anyway. If they do have more after tax money then they should have more capital with which to buy that factory.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah except for that part where its better now than it was 4 years ago with trickle down. But other than that..yeah.

Reagan's recovery was also better after 4 years of trickle down. Much, much better than today's economic recovery.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm

 

[lotus503]

Reagan's recovery was also better after 4 years of trickle down. Much, much better than today's economic recovery.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm

Reagan's recovery was also fueled by borrowing from Japan to outspend the soviets.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Reagan's recovery was also fueled by borrowing from Japan to outspend the soviets.

Tell me...how much have we borrowed from China the last 4 years?

 

[Paul98]

My feelings on this are...

If an economy is weak or recovering, trickle up works better, because it can help recover and strengthen the economy faster with businesses demand increasing (along with profits) meaning more jobs made.

However once an economy has hit its full upswing and is strong, I believe trickle down works better to keep the economy that strong for as long as possible, since once demand starts to go (as people no longer need to spend with a better economy) this helps secure the jobs that companies have added longer.


Right this moment? We still need to do trickle up.

Basically this though it's is far more complicated. The problem is that we don't have a real long term economic plan that changes as conditions change in a way that will make things better. Instead we get arbitrary changes that a group of people think will help based on their ideology rather than the reality of the situation.

 

[lotus503]

Tell me...how much have we borrowed from China the last 4 years?

I dont know, alot?

What does that have to do with Reagan Borrowing from Japan to outspend soviets? Unless you think all of that spent, borrowed money didnt stimulate growth albiet artificially.

In fact Reagan did exactly what they all do, when there is lack of real demand, they create it by borrowing and spending.