Top Down vs. Bottom up economics

[jackace]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
In Trickle Down approach you are cutting taxes on the rich and corporations hoping that businesses will create more jobs, which in turn will put more money in the hands of working class, who in turn will buy more products created by the extra jobs created by the tax cuts.

In Bottom Up approach you give more money to people who are most likely to spend it, thus stimulating demand and therefore job creation by the companies who respond to increased demand by increasing output and hiring more people.


Frankly, you don't need much insight to see that the second approach is a more direct solution to the problem and in all the probability has much more chances of working out the way you want it to. In fact I don't see how the first approach would work in real life at all, and the history shows it never did. Why do you think the most recent economic stimulus was aimed at lower and middle classes? Because they would spend it all helping stimulate the economy through demand. Of all those who believe in trickle down approach, please raise hand if you think the 150B would have been better spent on tax cuts to rich and corporations.

Exactly. Trickle down defies supply and demand. It's dependent on the goodness of human nature. LOL.

Where do you get that from? It assumes when the top has money they will invest in their business. Investing in their business creates jobs. It doesnt rely on the goodness of human nature, it relies on the greed of the investor to create wealth. In the process it creates jobs and the wealth is passed down via an income for the new worker.

If there is no increase in demand for the products and/or services your business offers what is the point of investing and growing any larger? At that point the only reason would be to take market share from a competitor, but that doesn't really create anymore jobs than it destroys.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
In Trickle Down approach you are cutting taxes on the rich and corporations hoping that businesses will create more jobs, which in turn will put more money in the hands of working class, who in turn will buy more products created by the extra jobs created by the tax cuts.

In Bottom Up approach you give more money to people who are most likely to spend it, thus stimulating demand and therefore job creation by the companies who respond to increased demand by increasing output and hiring more people.


Frankly, you don't need much insight to see that the second approach is a more direct solution to the problem and in all the probability has much more chances of working out the way you want it to. In fact I don't see how the first approach would work in real life at all, and the history shows it never did. Why do you think the most recent economic stimulus was aimed at lower and middle classes? Because they would spend it all helping stimulate the economy through demand. Of all those who believe in trickle down approach, please raise hand if you think the 150B would have been better spent on tax cuts to rich and corporations.

Exactly. Trickle down defies supply and demand. It's dependent on the goodness of human nature. LOL.

Where do you get that from? It assumes when the top has money they will invest in their business. Investing in their business creates jobs. It doesnt rely on the goodness of human nature, it relies on the greed of the investor to create wealth. In the process it creates jobs and the wealth is passed down via an income for the new worker.

Yeah, but based on that kind of economics 101 view of the economy, trickle UP economics should work just as well. Poorer people with more money will spend it to buy things. This will increase revenue for businesses, which will lead to more jobs and so on.

In fact, that system should work better because while not all rich folks run a business, everyone buys things. Of course they don't all buy from American companies, just like not all rich people are going to use their money to create jobs. The problem with trickle down theory isn't that it's fundamentally bad, it's that it relies on an extremely simple interpretation of the market and the economy. Plus it's really insulting to people who AREN'T rich, implying that they can't be trusted with their money, the rich folks are the only ones who know how to properly use it. That might not be "socialism", but it's just as bad.

 

[MadRat]

Laissez-faire in the social engineering department works best ultimately for everyone. Government really should be about solving big problems, not about enriching any group in particular. I might be selfish, but its my opinion that government shouldn't even be involved in Medicare, Social Security, and retirement programs as far as funding them goes. People in government especially should not get retirements, health insurance, and all those other fringe benefits that the rest of society are struggling to afford. If people want to garner a living off public jobs then they need to sacrifice those benefits to do so.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: eleison
Demand is created by advertising and having a good product. Before Apple created the ipod/iphone, there was no demand for mp3 players like we see now. Giving free money to people, in itself did not create the iphone. It took a company with capital to do the R&D and marketing. Marketing causes demand.

That's just horribly wrong. If there was no demand for an mp3 player like we see now, no one would have invested in making one. Supply does not create it's own demand. If you are trying to invoke Say's Law then you are doing it wrong. Marketing can amplify demand but it can't create it either. People with money to spend creates demand for mp3 players, iphones and everything else.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Here's a pretty good argument against trickle down:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress..../17/1928-resemblances/

Not really, during the 60's, 70's and early 90's, the US economy wasn't doing that well. Guess when the wealthy were also not doing as well -- yep, during the same time period.

Conversely, according to this chart, guess when the US economy was doing well? it was when the rich was also doing well. See a pattern?

As the wealthy do well and help create jobs, the economy do well.

The pattern I see is when the wealth is so concentrated at the top 1% such as it is today and the 1920's very bad things happen to the economy.

1920 was called the "roaring 20's" for a reason... and that reason wasn't because the economy was bad ;-)

Notice how during the depression, the wealthy weren't doing very well... guess what, the US economy wasn't doing that well also.

Don't be jealous and focus only on the rich.. it is better to focus on the general population. In this case, when the wealthy are doing good, in general, everyone is doing good.

When society tries to force everyone to be at the "same level", it just hurts the economy. Wealth redistribution does not work.. China has tried to do this before and it has caused millions of people to die of starvation -- same with USSR.

But in a democracy people realize that they can act on their envy by voting politicians who promise to tax the top 5% more and give checks with the proceeds to the bottom 95%.

I'm not trying to force everyone to the same level nor am i necessarily advocating wealth redistribution. The latter is my real sticking point though because in a "free and open" economy there shouldn't be such a wide disparity between "have's" and "have not's". There's something funky going on, something that is indeed tilting the playing field, and distributing the wealth to the top.

There's some more, related info here for anyone that might be interested:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor...rica/power/wealth.html

Yes, there should be a HUGE disparity between in a free society. Wealth is CREATED by the producers and risk takers of the economy. It's not an inevitable certain amount of pie that is baked where if someone takes a piece that means less for another.

There should be two primary reasons for obscene disparities in a free society:
1) inheritance of wealth. if someone hoards his money and invests and saves it wisely, and passes it to his child, then again to his child, that earned wealth should not be penalized
2) a burger flipper who flunked out of high school's wealth should not be even CLOSE to the entrepreneur who took the risk to build a burger chain empire

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
In Trickle Down approach you are cutting taxes on the rich and corporations hoping that businesses will create more jobs, which in turn will put more money in the hands of working class, who in turn will buy more products created by the extra jobs created by the tax cuts.

In Bottom Up approach you give more money to people who are most likely to spend it, thus stimulating demand and therefore job creation by the companies who respond to increased demand by increasing output and hiring more people.


Frankly, you don't need much insight to see that the second approach is a more direct solution to the problem and in all the probability has much more chances of working out the way you want it to. In fact I don't see how the first approach would work in real life at all, and the history shows it never did. Why do you think the most recent economic stimulus was aimed at lower and middle classes? Because they would spend it all helping stimulate the economy through demand. Of all those who believe in trickle down approach, please raise hand if you think the 150B would have been better spent on tax cuts to rich and corporations.

Exactly. Trickle down defies supply and demand. It's dependent on the goodness of human nature. LOL.

No, it's dependent on greed. Rich people don't sit on cash earnings 3%, they make it go to work, and it's their greed that stimulates investments and ultimately the economy. And we all know every human has greed in them.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: eleison
Demand is created by advertising and having a good product. Before Apple created the ipod/iphone, there was no demand for mp3 players like we see now. Giving free money to people, in itself did not create the iphone. It took a company with capital to do the R&D and marketing. Marketing causes demand.

Giving people money is great, but without focusing on the health of the company, users just buy the "subpar" product, i.e., an regular mp3. however, once bought and the money spent, the economy doesn't really get any boost. Without focusing on the company that creates new, better products (and markets them slickly) causing people to buy season after season, the economy gets hurts.

Desire of new products help motive people to work. Companies that have new/and or "desirable" products to sell, create jobs which people can work at. Its a cycle that helps employed get employed, not just sitting by waiting to "share the wealth"...

So how do these people afford these products if they have no jobs or are making minimum wage? All the marketing in the world is not going to put $300 into my bank account so I can afford to buy an Ipod or Iphone.

You are so fixed on this giving free money to people. That is not even close to what we are saying. We are saying that first people who work full-time jobs are paid a fair and living wage. Second, the poorest of the people are not taxed much if at all to encourage them to better themselves and spend. The higher the earnings the more people are taxed. It doesn't take away their ability to make money and even more money. It is used to keep a balance of wealth between the rich, middle class, and the poor. The theory is rich people benefit the most from society (i.e. roads for their companies to ship goods and stable, skilled, and educated work force with which to build products and/or perform services) so they should pay the most to maintain the society.

No, but the *want* will drive someone to make more money so he can eventually afford the shit he wants. Handing people money does not motivate. Not affording something is a huge motivating factor.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: eleison
Demand is created by advertising and having a good product. Before Apple created the ipod/iphone, there was no demand for mp3 players like we see now. Giving free money to people, in itself did not create the iphone. It took a company with capital to do the R&D and marketing. Marketing causes demand.

Giving people money is great, but without focusing on the health of the company, users just buy the "subpar" product, i.e., an regular mp3. however, once bought and the money spent, the economy doesn't really get any boost. Without focusing on the company that creates new, better products (and markets them slickly) causing people to buy season after season, the economy gets hurts.

Desire of new products help motive people to work. Companies that have new/and or "desirable" products to sell, create jobs which people can work at. Its a cycle that helps employed get employed, not just sitting by waiting to "share the wealth"...

So how do these people afford these products if they have no jobs or are making minimum wage? All the marketing in the world is not going to put $300 into my bank account so I can afford to buy an Ipod or Iphone.

You are so fixed on this giving free money to people. That is not even close to what we are saying. We are saying that first people who work full-time jobs are paid a fair and living wage. Second, the poorest of the people are not taxed much if at all to encourage them to better themselves and spend. The higher the earnings the more people are taxed. It doesn't take away their ability to make money and even more money. It is used to keep a balance of wealth between the rich, middle class, and the poor. The theory is rich people benefit the most from society (i.e. roads for their companies to ship goods and stable, skilled, and educated work force with which to build products and/or perform services) so they should pay the most to maintain the society.

Actually, the rich don't benefit the most from society. The rich can only eat so much.. they can only wear so many pairs of pants... they can only consume so much. They only live for a finite number of years and then they die. Besides, they only make up a small portion of the population. If you compare a society that "looks down on the rich" and a society that doesn't, the standard of living in the society that don't look down on the rich is better off. They have a better standard of living.

People in general benefit the most from the work of the rich. Just by having the rich as an example to aspire to has created and motived people to work, to create things - would Steve Jobs created the Ipod or Iphone if he wasn't allowed to profit from it? Trying to create an artificial "balance" of rich, poor, middle class, etc., has never worked EVEN if we could agree upon what is "balanced"... Its like saying "okay, Bob.. we have too many rich business owners this year.. we have already filled the quota... hence you have to go home and not work any more else there will be too many rich people OR else we will tax you until you leave "... Its just silly... its also like saying, "Well, Maggie you cannot become a doctor because doctors make a lot of money and there is already too many people making a lot of money.. hey's a paper and pencil, your going to be a secretary.. if you don't like it, work as a doctor, but we are going to tax you until your income is the same as a secretary".. its silly... how do you discourage people from living to their full potential... or should you even discourage them? how do you create this artificial "balance"?

Desire and wants of new things make people work. Before money, people traded either labor or products for things they wanted and desired. Giving $300 to someone does not, by itself, promote companies to create. Its a ban aid. Your right, "all the marketing in the world s not going to put $300 into my bank account so I can afford to buy an Ipod or Iphone," it will however, make you want to find work so you can afford to buy one Or borrow money from your friend to buy one. Desires and wants creates jobs...

However, if there is a company that makes generic mp3 players, and I gave you $300 for free to buy it. It doesn't motivate you to look for a job. Nor does it motivate companies to market and create better products. Its the mentality of "free" money. Why work to attract customers w/ better products when customers already have money to buy the existing marginal products? Its a bad cycle of apathy... between the customers and the companies.. Ultimate the company takes the money, and thats it... No desire for jobs.. no demand for job creation. This the "sharing the weath"... stagnant

 

[justly]

Bottom up will have little (or at best only short term) effect unless the nation that implements it is an isolationist nation where spending produces jobs only within its boarders. Once a nation is opened to the global market a solely bottom up approach will ultamitly fail. The failure will be due to either no wealth at the investment level so no jobs will be created, or because it can be purchased from other countries that already have a solid manufacturing base that can produce outsourced goods cheaper and at a higher quality, most likely that both would apply.

Top down will work but it has to be done right. The top down approach has to be mostly focused on building jobs not wealth, (wealth will happen as a by product). incentives have to be given for companies to expand and relocate from other nations to ours. This means having lower taxes and less delays,obstructions, restrictions imposed by the government. Of course the bottom also has to be considered as they can accelerate growth, but even if they are not, it will eventually get to them (just slower). The simple truth is that even if the "bottom" doesn't have suficent wealth to start job creation by spending money, our own wealthy and people in other countries do. If businesses in our country can be competitive in a "global market" we create jobs here, and the people with those jobs create a bottom up incentive for jobs that cant be outsourced due to the services they provide not being outsourcable.

I guess it could be said that a top down economy stimulates the bottom up theory of sucess.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Here's a pretty good argument against trickle down:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress..../17/1928-resemblances/

Not really, during the 60's, 70's and early 90's, the US economy wasn't doing that well. Guess when the wealthy were also not doing as well -- yep, during the same time period.

Conversely, according to this chart, guess when the US economy was doing well? it was when the rich was also doing well. See a pattern?

As the wealthy do well and help create jobs, the economy do well.

The pattern I see is when the wealth is so concentrated at the top 1% such as it is today and the 1920's very bad things happen to the economy.

1920 was called the "roaring 20's" for a reason... and that reason wasn't because the economy was bad ;-)

Notice how during the depression, the wealthy weren't doing very well... guess what, the US economy wasn't doing that well also.

Don't be jealous and focus only on the rich.. it is better to focus on the general population. In this case, when the wealthy are doing good, in general, everyone is doing good.

When society tries to force everyone to be at the "same level", it just hurts the economy. Wealth redistribution does not work.. China has tried to do this before and it has caused millions of people to die of starvation -- same with USSR.

But in a democracy people realize that they can act on their envy by voting politicians who promise to tax the top 5% more and give checks with the proceeds to the bottom 95%.

I'm not trying to force everyone to the same level nor am i necessarily advocating wealth redistribution. The latter is my real sticking point though because in a "free and open" economy there shouldn't be such a wide disparity between "have's" and "have not's". There's something funky going on, something that is indeed tilting the playing field, and distributing the wealth to the top.

There's some more, related info here for anyone that might be interested:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor...rica/power/wealth.html

Yes, there should be a HUGE disparity between in a free society. Wealth is CREATED by the producers and risk takers of the economy. It's not an inevitable certain amount of pie that is baked where if someone takes a piece that means less for another.

There should be two primary reasons for obscene disparities in a free society:
1) inheritance of wealth. if someone hoards his money and invests and saves it wisely, and passes it to his child, then again to his child, that earned wealth should not be penalized
2) a burger flipper who flunked out of high school's wealth should not be even CLOSE to the entrepreneur who took the risk to build a burger chain empire

Over the entire range a big disparity is to be expected. But 1% of the population should not own 25% of the total wealth. Or 10% posses 50% of the total wealth. Or CEO's being paid as much as 500 of their employees. In a free and open market, all returns should should trend towards the normal rate of return. That goes for labor markets as well. Any time you have large, consistent disparities their are barriers at work preventing it.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Over the entire range a big disparity is to be expected. But 1% of the population should not own 25% of the total wealth. Or 10% posses 50% of the total wealth. Or CEO's being paid as much as 500 of their employees. In a free and open market, all returns should should trend towards the normal rate of return. That goes for labor markets as well. Any time you have large, consistent disparities their are barriers at work preventing it.

It actually makes perfect sense that 10% has amassed 50% of total wealth (if that stat is true), they most likely earned it. Look at human history, SAT tests, IQ scores, sports, etc. Most humans are complacent sheep. It is the few that use their ambition and creativity to rise to the top, and the masses that remain where they are.

Go look at the Forbes wealthiest people in the world (exclude the rat oil princes). Most of the wealth created was by fruits of their labor and creativity (or their father/grandfather).

 

[First]

Bottom up, and the stats show an undeniable trend on that since the early 1970's. It's clear as day top-down doesn't work. Works in computer networking, not in economics.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: eleison
Demand is created by advertising and having a good product. Before Apple created the ipod/iphone, there was no demand for mp3 players like we see now. Giving free money to people, in itself did not create the iphone. It took a company with capital to do the R&D and marketing. Marketing causes demand.

Giving people money is great, but without focusing on the health of the company, users just buy the "subpar" product, i.e., an regular mp3. however, once bought and the money spent, the economy doesn't really get any boost. Without focusing on the company that creates new, better products (and markets them slickly) causing people to buy season after season, the economy gets hurts.

Desire of new products help motive people to work. Companies that have new/and or "desirable" products to sell, create jobs which people can work at. Its a cycle that helps employed get employed, not just sitting by waiting to "share the wealth"...

So how do these people afford these products if they have no jobs or are making minimum wage? All the marketing in the world is not going to put $300 into my bank account so I can afford to buy an Ipod or Iphone.

You are so fixed on this giving free money to people. That is not even close to what we are saying. We are saying that first people who work full-time jobs are paid a fair and living wage. Second, the poorest of the people are not taxed much if at all to encourage them to better themselves and spend. The higher the earnings the more people are taxed. It doesn't take away their ability to make money and even more money. It is used to keep a balance of wealth between the rich, middle class, and the poor. The theory is rich people benefit the most from society (i.e. roads for their companies to ship goods and stable, skilled, and educated work force with which to build products and/or perform services) so they should pay the most to maintain the society.

No, but the *want* will drive someone to make more money so he can eventually afford the shit he wants. Handing people money does not motivate. Not affording something is a huge motivating factor.

And motivation is not the only factor in future success. Motivation is certainly helpful, but NO government program proposed by Obama takes away that motivation (unless he's handing out BMWs and I missed it). But motivation alone isn't enough if you can't afford to send your kids to college, better your own education or save a little for the future. Structured right, government programs can help give poorer people a chance to make use of their motivation, which would seem like something Republicans should want to encourage.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Over the entire range a big disparity is to be expected. But 1% of the population should not own 25% of the total wealth. Or 10% posses 50% of the total wealth. Or CEO's being paid as much as 500 of their employees. In a free and open market, all returns should should trend towards the normal rate of return. That goes for labor markets as well. Any time you have large, consistent disparities their are barriers at work preventing it.

It actually makes perfect sense that 10% has amassed 50% of total wealth (if that stat is true), they most likely earned it. Look at human history, SAT tests, IQ scores, sports, etc. Most humans are complacent sheep. It is the few that use their ambition and creativity to rise to the top, and the masses that remain where they are.

Go look at the Forbes wealthiest people in the world (exclude the rat oil princes). Most of the wealth created was by fruits of their labor and creativity (or their father/grandfather).

I don't think government should be about serving the needs of the rich few, who can mostly look after themselves. They hardly need MORE incentive to be rich, so why not try to help the people who struggle to afford the basics? Government is supposed to be about making the country a better place for EVERYONE, not as some official pat on the back for rich folks.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: eleison
Demand is created by advertising and having a good product. Before Apple created the ipod/iphone, there was no demand for mp3 players like we see now. Giving free money to people, in itself did not create the iphone. It took a company with capital to do the R&D and marketing. Marketing causes demand.

Giving people money is great, but without focusing on the health of the company, users just buy the "subpar" product, i.e., an regular mp3. however, once bought and the money spent, the economy doesn't really get any boost. Without focusing on the company that creates new, better products (and markets them slickly) causing people to buy season after season, the economy gets hurts.

Desire of new products help motive people to work. Companies that have new/and or "desirable" products to sell, create jobs which people can work at. Its a cycle that helps employed get employed, not just sitting by waiting to "share the wealth"...

So how do these people afford these products if they have no jobs or are making minimum wage? All the marketing in the world is not going to put $300 into my bank account so I can afford to buy an Ipod or Iphone.

You are so fixed on this giving free money to people. That is not even close to what we are saying. We are saying that first people who work full-time jobs are paid a fair and living wage. Second, the poorest of the people are not taxed much if at all to encourage them to better themselves and spend. The higher the earnings the more people are taxed. It doesn't take away their ability to make money and even more money. It is used to keep a balance of wealth between the rich, middle class, and the poor. The theory is rich people benefit the most from society (i.e. roads for their companies to ship goods and stable, skilled, and educated work force with which to build products and/or perform services) so they should pay the most to maintain the society.

Actually, the rich don't benefit the most from society. The rich can only eat so much.. they can only wear so many pairs of pants... they can only consume so much. They only live for a finite number of years and then they die. Besides, they only make up a small portion of the population. If you compare a society that "looks down on the rich" and a society that doesn't, the standard of living in the society that don't look down on the rich is better off. They have a better standard of living.

People in general benefit the most from the work of the rich. Just by having the rich as an example to aspire to has created and motived people to work, to create things - would Steve Jobs created the Ipod or Iphone if he wasn't allowed to profit from it? Trying to create an artificial "balance" of rich, poor, middle class, etc., has never worked EVEN if we could agree upon what is "balanced"... Its like saying "okay, Bob.. we have too many rich business owners this year.. we have already filled the quota... hence you have to go home and not work any more else there will be too many rich people OR else we will tax you until you leave "... Its just silly... its also like saying, "Well, Maggie you cannot become a doctor because doctors make a lot of money and there is already too many people making a lot of money.. hey's a paper and pencil, your going to be a secretary.. if you don't like it, work as a doctor, but we are going to tax you until your income is the same as a secretary".. its silly... how do you discourage people from living to their full potential... or should you even discourage them? how do you create this artificial "balance"?

Desire and wants of new things make people work. Before money, people traded either labor or products for things they wanted and desired. Giving $300 to someone does not, by itself, promote companies to create. Its a ban aid. Your right, "all the marketing in the world s not going to put $300 into my bank account so I can afford to buy an Ipod or Iphone," it will however, make you want to find work so you can afford to buy one Or borrow money from your friend to buy one. Desires and wants creates jobs...

However, if there is a company that makes generic mp3 players, and I gave you $300 for free to buy it. It doesn't motivate you to look for a job. Nor does it motivate companies to market and create better products. Its the mentality of "free" money. Why work to attract customers w/ better products when customers already have money to buy the existing marginal products? Its a bad cycle of apathy... between the customers and the companies.. Ultimate the company takes the money, and thats it... No desire for jobs.. no demand for job creation. This the "sharing the weath"... stagnant

First off yes the rich benefit more from society. They have more money so they can afford more luxury. Things like penthouses, high fashion, private jets, limos, etc. Society and all it offers has allowed them to build businesses and make money, in some cases large amounts of money. Without a stable society building these businesses would be hard if not impossible. So again, yes the rich have benefited more from society because they have more than the rest of society and our society enabled them to do it.

Second I and most people advocating bottom up economics are not saying you take from the rich and give free money to the poor. I have said this twice now. What we are saying is taxes need to be progressive, (as almost every 1st world country currently does including the US) and people working full time jobs should earn a "living wage" so they do not need government handouts to survive.

This in no way takes anything from the rich, and still allows people to strive for bigger and better things. It still motivates companies to develop better products. What it also does is puts a minimum on what we as society will accept as a wage for even the most basic job.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Laissez-faire in the social engineering department works best ultimately for everyone. Government really should be about solving big problems, not about enriching any group in particular. I might be selfish, but its my opinion that government shouldn't even be involved in Medicare, Social Security, and retirement programs as far as funding them goes. People in government especially should not get retirements, health insurance, and all those other fringe benefits that the rest of society are struggling to afford. If people want to garner a living off public jobs then they need to sacrifice those benefits to do so.

Of course it is. It was great durring the days of the robber barons.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: justly
Bottom up will have little (or at best only short term) effect unless the nation that implements it is an isolationist nation where spending produces jobs only within its boarders. Once a nation is opened to the global market a solely bottom up approach will ultamitly fail. The failure will be due to either no wealth at the investment level so no jobs will be created, or because it can be purchased from other countries that already have a solid manufacturing base that can produce outsourced goods cheaper and at a higher quality, most likely that both would apply.

Top down will work but it has to be done right. The top down approach has to be mostly focused on building jobs not wealth, (wealth will happen as a by product). incentives have to be given for companies to expand and relocate from other nations to ours. This means having lower taxes and less delays,obstructions, restrictions imposed by the government. Of course the bottom also has to be considered as they can accelerate growth, but even if they are not, it will eventually get to them (just slower). The simple truth is that even if the "bottom" doesn't have suficent wealth to start job creation by spending money, our own wealthy and people in other countries do. If businesses in our country can be competitive in a "global market" we create jobs here, and the people with those jobs create a bottom up incentive for jobs that cant be outsourced due to the services they provide not being outsourcable.

I guess it could be said that a top down economy stimulates the bottom up theory of sucess.

Not a bad argument, but I'm not sure it's so easy to get companies to expand in the US vs spending their money overseas, just like you're afraid the consumers will do.

A counter-argument would be that investments are always available given the right circumstance, and an increase the buying power of domestic consumers should allow for expanding a business based domestically. Your approach rests on the assumption that labor can be competitive in a free market, so surely companies can do the same.

The fact is that neither approach works all by itself, you need a comprehensive plan. And in any case, while your top-down approach has merit, it is not the same as tax cuts for the wealthy that are often proposed as a way to implement trickle down economics.

 

[smashp]

top down has been in effect since the Dawn of time

Hence why we have always had no systems of govenrment created and revolutions

 

[bctbct]

Why is this still being debated, look at the last 7 years. Corporate welfare doesnt work.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: justly
Bottom up will have little (or at best only short term) effect unless the nation that implements it is an isolationist nation where spending produces jobs only within its boarders. Once a nation is opened to the global market a solely bottom up approach will ultamitly fail. The failure will be due to either no wealth at the investment level so no jobs will be created, or because it can be purchased from other countries that already have a solid manufacturing base that can produce outsourced goods cheaper and at a higher quality, most likely that both would apply.

Top down will work but it has to be done right. The top down approach has to be mostly focused on building jobs not wealth, (wealth will happen as a by product). incentives have to be given for companies to expand and relocate from other nations to ours. This means having lower taxes and less delays,obstructions, restrictions imposed by the government. Of course the bottom also has to be considered as they can accelerate growth, but even if they are not, it will eventually get to them (just slower). The simple truth is that even if the "bottom" doesn't have suficent wealth to start job creation by spending money, our own wealthy and people in other countries do. If businesses in our country can be competitive in a "global market" we create jobs here, and the people with those jobs create a bottom up incentive for jobs that cant be outsourced due to the services they provide not being outsourcable.

I guess it could be said that a top down economy stimulates the bottom up theory of sucess.

Not a bad argument, but I'm not sure it's so easy to get companies to expand in the US vs spending their money overseas, just like you're afraid the consumers will do.

A counter-argument would be that investments are always available given the right circumstance, and an increase the buying power of domestic consumers should allow for expanding a business based domestically. Your approach rests on the assumption that labor can be competitive in a free market, so surely companies can do the same.

The fact is that neither approach works all by itself, you need a comprehensive plan. And in any case, while your top-down approach has merit, it is not the same as tax cuts for the wealthy that are often proposed as a way to implement trickle down economics.

I do agree that it is best to have both, but before you go and assume that I want tax cuts for the higest wage earners maybe you should ask.

Actually I do think the the wealthy should be taxed more, the big problem is that "the devil is in the details". I have no problem increasing the tax rate of the wages on someone like a corporate CEO, as that money only serves his/her own interests, but if they invest that money and make a profit while stimulating job growth then maybe that rate should be reduced, after all it is helping everyone. There are also other options like a fair tax or flat tax, now I haven't done my reasearch into these but I do believe both would end up taxing the wealthy more. The point being wealthy individuals should pay more tax, but companies and individuals that stimulate job growth should not be taxed insomuch that it limits or even stifles job growth.

As for the assumption that labor has to be competitive that may not be a necessity, ever heard work smater not harder?
If we can give our businesses an equal footing or even an advantage over a foreign company due to reduced tax and less delays,obstructions, restrictions from the government then our products may be competitive in price even with higher wages. Maybe this isn't a good example but it may get my point across, look at anything made overseas from HDTVs to garden hose spray nozzles, these are not labor intensive to manufacture (I really doubt these are hand made) so why cant we make them here? are we so inept as to not be able to design and build these things? can we not figure out how to automate a manufacturing process? maybe it is labor costs, but if it is do we really want to make it even harder for us to compete by having higher corporate taxes?
I don't claim to have a diffinitive answer reguarding our tax code, but what I'm hearing from many on this fourm about bottom up economics sounds incomplete at best and completly wrong at worst.