Consumers create jobs.

[Rshermr]

"Irwin Shishko"? Ah, who IS Irwin Shishko and why is it that I should pay attention to him? I Googled his name and the ONLY thing there was the article that you cited, Rshermr. Obviously Mr. Shishko is a PROLIFIC writer on economic issues and I can see why you were so eager to use him as proof! (eye-roll)

So, oldstyle, want a couple economists. Here you go.
Trickle-down theorists are quick to object that higher taxes would cause top earners to work less and take fewer risks, thereby stifling economic growth
Robert H. Frank, an economist at the Johnson School of Management at Cornell University
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html


Jared Bernstein
The problem with the 'trickle down' theory - CSMonitor.com

And I can go on and on. this took about 3 minutes. Both are well respected economists. But the fact that you are a liar is well documented now. Next, dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Irwin Shishko"? Ah, who IS Irwin Shishko and why is it that I should pay attention to him? I Googled his name and the ONLY thing there was the article that you cited, Rshermr. Obviously Mr. Shishko is a PROLIFIC writer on economic issues and I can see why you were so eager to use him as proof! (eye-roll)

So, oldstyle, want a couple economists. Here you go.
Trickle-down theorists are quick to object that higher taxes would cause top earners to work less and take fewer risks, thereby stifling economic growth
Robert H. Frank, an economist at the Johnson School of Management at Cornell University
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html


Jared Bernstein
The problem with the 'trickle down' theory - CSMonitor.com

And I can go on and on. this took about 3 minutes. Both are well respected economists. But the fact that you are a liar is well documented now. Next, dipshit.

Bernstein graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. Despite his previous employment, he does not have a degree or any formal training in economics.

Oops...Rshermr screwed up AGAIN!!! Trying to pass ANOTHER person off as an economist!!! Oh, excuse me...a "well respected economist". Now who's the liar here? Duh?

 

[Rshermr]

And then you've got to just LOVE, Robert Reich talking way back in 2008 about the wonders of building a "bottom up" economy and of course using the pejorative "trickle down" theory instead of the proper Supply Side theory. Gee, Robert...how DID that "bottom up" thing turn out for us? You know...the stimulus that you were pushing to be passed back in the Fall of 2008? What a surprise that one of the strongest supporters of income redistribution would lapse into using the term trickle down. But hey, at least you finally named someone who had some background in economics!!!

And you lie and lie and lie. robert did not say anything about income redistribution. that, me poor dumb con, is a repub term. Income redistribution in practice has been increasing income for the wealthy. They have become more wealthy, the middle class and below less so. And, oldstyle, if you would like to argue that point, go ahead, for I will bury you on this one. You simply posted a con dogma statement. Nice try.
by the way, your favorite economist, you say he is your proof that trickle down is not a theory. I think you are lying again. I can find no such statement from him. Are you lying again??? I think so, dipshit. You are again lying.

 

[Oldstyle]

But hey...he can play the double bass...

 

[Oldstyle]

And then you've got to just LOVE, Robert Reich talking way back in 2008 about the wonders of building a "bottom up" economy and of course using the pejorative "trickle down" theory instead of the proper Supply Side theory. Gee, Robert...how DID that "bottom up" thing turn out for us? You know...the stimulus that you were pushing to be passed back in the Fall of 2008? What a surprise that one of the strongest supporters of income redistribution would lapse into using the term trickle down. But hey, at least you finally named someone who had some background in economics!!!

And you lie and lie and lie. robert did not say anything about income redistribution. that, me poor dumb con, is a repub term. Income redistribution in practice has been increasing income for the wealthy. They have become more wealthy, the middle class and below less so. And, oldstyle, if you would like to argue that point, go ahead, for I will bury you on this one. You simply posted a con dogma statement. Nice try.
by the way, your favorite economist, you say he is your proof that trickle down is not a theory. I think you are lying again. I can find no such statement from him. Are you lying again??? I think so, dipshit. You are again lying.

I quoted him directly from his book, oh great economics guru! It's called "Basic Economics" and it's something that YOU'VE obviously never read.

 

[Oldstyle]

The following is another New York Times article written by your other "noted economist", Robert Frank. You'll note that he's rather OUTSPOKEN about his view that economics shouldn't be a dispassionate examination of statistics but that they have a "moral" duty to do what's right. You wonder why Frank keeps harping away at an economic "theory" (trickle-down theory) that doesn't exist? It's because it fits his POLITICS...just as I said and just as Sowell pointed out.

Income Inequality: Too Big to Ignore
By ROBERT H. FRANK
Published: October 16, 2010


"PEOPLE often remember the past with exaggerated fondness. Sometimes, however, important aspects of life really were better in the old days.
Enlarge This Image

David G. Klein
Related

Letters: That Wide Income Gap (October 24, 2010)
During the three decades after World War II, for example, incomes in the United States rose rapidly and at about the same rate — almost 3 percent a year — for people at all income levels. America had an economically vibrant middle class. Roads and bridges were well maintained, and impressive new infrastructure was being built. People were optimistic.

By contrast, during the last three decades the economy has grown much more slowly, and our infrastructure has fallen into grave disrepair. Most troubling, all significant income growth has been concentrated at the top of the scale. The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent.

Yet many economists are reluctant to confront rising income inequality directly, saying that whether this trend is good or bad requires a value judgment that is best left to philosophers. But that disclaimer rings hollow. Economics, after all, was founded by moral philosophers, and links between the disciplines remain strong. So economists are well positioned to address this question, and the answer is very clear.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, was a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. His first book, “A Theory of Moral Sentiments,” was published more than 25 years before his celebrated “Wealth of Nations,” which was itself peppered with trenchant moral analysis.

Some moral philosophers address inequality by invoking principles of justice and fairness. But because they have been unable to forge broad agreement about what these abstract principles mean in practice, they’ve made little progress. The more pragmatic cost-benefit approach favored by Smith has proved more fruitful, for it turns out that rising inequality has created enormous losses and few gains, even for its ostensible beneficiaries.

Recent research on psychological well-being has taught us that beyond a certain point, across-the-board spending increases often do little more than raise the bar for what is considered enough. A C.E.O. may think he needs a 30,000-square-foot mansion, for example, just because each of his peers has one. Although they might all be just as happy in more modest dwellings, few would be willing to downsize on their own.

People do not exist in a social vacuum. Community norms define clear expectations about what people should spend on interview suits and birthday parties. Rising inequality has thus spawned a multitude of “expenditure cascades,” whose first step is increased spending by top earners.

The rich have been spending more simply because they have so much extra money. Their spending shifts the frame of reference that shapes the demands of those just below them, who travel in overlapping social circles. So this second group, too, spends more, which shifts the frame of reference for the group just below it, and so on, all the way down the income ladder. These cascades have made it substantially more expensive for middle-class families to achieve basic financial goals.

In a recent working paper based on census data for the 100 most populous counties in the United States, Adam Seth Levine (a postdoctoral researcher in political science at Vanderbilt University), Oege Dijk (an economics Ph.D. student at the European University Institute) and I found that the counties where income inequality grew fastest also showed the biggest increases in symptoms of financial distress.

For example, even after controlling for other factors, these counties had the largest increases in bankruptcy filings.

Divorce rates are another reliable indicator of financial distress, as marriage counselors report that a high proportion of couples they see are experiencing significant financial problems. The counties with the biggest increases in inequality also reported the largest increases in divorce rates.

Another footprint of financial distress is long commute times, because families who are short on cash often try to make ends meet by moving to where housing is cheaper — in many cases, farther from work. The counties where long commute times had grown the most were again those with the largest increases in inequality.

The middle-class squeeze has also reduced voters’ willingness to support even basic public services. Rich and poor alike endure crumbling roads, weak bridges, an unreliable rail system, and cargo containers that enter our ports without scrutiny. And many Americans live in the shadow of poorly maintained dams that could collapse at any moment.

ECONOMISTS who say we should relegate questions about inequality to philosophers often advocate policies, like tax cuts for the wealthy, that increase inequality substantially. That greater inequality causes real harm is beyond doubt.

But are there offsetting benefits?

There is no persuasive evidence that greater inequality bolsters economic growth or enhances anyone’s well-being. Yes, the rich can now buy bigger mansions and host more expensive parties. But this appears to have made them no happier. And in our winner-take-all economy, one effect of the growing inequality has been to lure our most talented graduates to the largely unproductive chase for financial bonanzas on Wall Street.

In short, the economist’s cost-benefit approach — itself long an important arrow in the moral philosopher’s quiver — has much to say about the effects of rising inequality. We need not reach agreement on all philosophical principles of fairness to recognize that it has imposed considerable harm across the income scale without generating significant offsetting benefits.

No one dares to argue that rising inequality is required in the name of fairness. So maybe we should just agree that it’s a bad thing — and try to do something about it."

 

[Oldstyle]

And then you've got to just LOVE, Robert Reich talking way back in 2008 about the wonders of building a "bottom up" economy and of course using the pejorative "trickle down" theory instead of the proper Supply Side theory. Gee, Robert...how DID that "bottom up" thing turn out for us? You know...the stimulus that you were pushing to be passed back in the Fall of 2008? What a surprise that one of the strongest supporters of income redistribution would lapse into using the term trickle down. But hey, at least you finally named someone who had some background in economics!!!

And you lie and lie and lie. robert did not say anything about income redistribution. that, me poor dumb con, is a repub term. Income redistribution in practice has been increasing income for the wealthy. They have become more wealthy, the middle class and below less so. And, oldstyle, if you would like to argue that point, go ahead, for I will bury you on this one. You simply posted a con dogma statement. Nice try.
by the way, your favorite economist, you say he is your proof that trickle down is not a theory. I think you are lying again. I can find no such statement from him. Are you lying again??? I think so, dipshit. You are again lying.

You don't even know who the people ARE that you're citing...you're just Googling trickle down and hoping to find someone that will back up your floundering argument. If you don't realize that one of Robert Reich's favorite topics is income inequality and that he has been preaching for government to step in to make it happen for many years then you don't really know diddly about Robert Reich. But since you don't seem to know diddly about much...why should that surprise?

 

[Rshermr]

"Irwin Shishko"? Ah, who IS Irwin Shishko and why is it that I should pay attention to him? I Googled his name and the ONLY thing there was the article that you cited, Rshermr. Obviously Mr. Shishko is a PROLIFIC writer on economic issues and I can see why you were so eager to use him as proof! (eye-roll)

So, oldstyle, want a couple economists. Here you go.
Trickle-down theorists are quick to object that higher taxes would cause top earners to work less and take fewer risks, thereby stifling economic growth
Robert H. Frank, an economist at the Johnson School of Management at Cornell University
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html


Jared Bernstein
The problem with the 'trickle down' theory - CSMonitor.com

And I can go on and on. this took about 3 minutes. Both are well respected economists. But the fact that you are a liar is well documented now. Next, dipshit.

Bernstein graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. Despite his previous employment, he does not have a degree or any formal training in economics.

Oops...Rshermr screwed up AGAIN!!! Trying to pass ANOTHER person off as an economist!!! Oh, excuse me...a "well respected economist". Now who's the liar here? Duh?

Oldstyle says: Bernstein graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. Despite his previous employment, he does not have a degree or any formal training in economics.

Oops...Rshermr screwed up AGAIN!!! Trying to pass ANOTHER person off as an economist!!!
Bernstein graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. Despite his previous employment, he does not have a degree or any formal training in economics.

Oops...Rshermr screwed up AGAIN!!! Trying to pass ANOTHER person off as an economist!!!
Bernstein graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. Despite his previous employment, he does not have a degree or any formal training in economics.

Oops...Rshermr screwed up AGAIN!!! Trying to pass ANOTHER person off as an economist!!!
Lets take a look:

Before joining the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as a senior fellow, Jared was chief economist to Vice President Joseph Biden and executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class.
From the info on the link I posted.
Between 1995 and 1996, he held the post of deputy chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor
Jared Bernstein Profile, Biography, About - CNBC
Someone screwed up. But it was not me. Check the titles. dipshit.
and so far, only you say that trickle down is not a theory. You have the least background of anyone. Remember, you have two college courses in econ and a career in the restaurant industry. And you want us to believe YOU??? Cmon, dipshit. Lets see some proof. So far, all we see are lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, want a couple economists. Here you go.
Trickle-down theorists are quick to object that higher taxes would cause top earners to work less and take fewer risks, thereby stifling economic growth
Robert H. Frank, an economist at the Johnson School of Management at Cornell University
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html


Jared Bernstein
The problem with the 'trickle down' theory - CSMonitor.com

And I can go on and on. this took about 3 minutes. Both are well respected economists. But the fact that you are a liar is well documented now. Next, dipshit.

Bernstein graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. Despite his previous employment, he does not have a degree or any formal training in economics.

Oops...Rshermr screwed up AGAIN!!! Trying to pass ANOTHER person off as an economist!!! Oh, excuse me...a "well respected economist". Now who's the liar here? Duh?

Oldstyle says: Bernstein graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. Despite his previous employment, he does not have a degree or any formal training in economics.

Oops...Rshermr screwed up AGAIN!!! Trying to pass ANOTHER person off as an economist!!!
Bernstein graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. Despite his previous employment, he does not have a degree or any formal training in economics.

Oops...Rshermr screwed up AGAIN!!! Trying to pass ANOTHER person off as an economist!!!
Bernstein graduated from the Manhattan School of Music with Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare. Despite his previous employment, he does not have a degree or any formal training in economics.

Oops...Rshermr screwed up AGAIN!!! Trying to pass ANOTHER person off as an economist!!!
Lets take a look:

Before joining the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as a senior fellow, Jared was chief economist to Vice President Joseph Biden and executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class.
From the info on the link I posted.
Between 1995 and 1996, he held the post of deputy chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor
Jared Bernstein Profile, Biography, About - CNBC
Someone screwed up. But it was not me. Check the titles. dipshit.
and so far, only you say that trickle down is not a theory. You have the least background of anyone. Remember, you have two college courses in econ and a career in the restaurant industry. And you want us to believe YOU??? Cmon, dipshit. Lets see some proof. So far, all we see are lies.

Only Joe Biden would make someone who wasn't an economist his "chief economist"! I guess when you are as clueless as Joe it's hard to tell if someone else is clueless as well. You gotta love that shit! And only NBC could be so sloppy that they didn't check what his educational background was either. Who should we believe? Go read the guy's bio you ass hat. We wonder why the government is so screwed up? You've got a guy working as the "Deputy Chief Economist at the U.S. Dept. of Labor that isn't an economist!!! These are the people you want running our health care system? We'll have Oprah Winfrey appointed as the Surgeon General.

 

[Rshermr]

And then you've got to just LOVE, Robert Reich talking way back in 2008 about the wonders of building a "bottom up" economy and of course using the pejorative "trickle down" theory instead of the proper Supply Side theory. Gee, Robert...how DID that "bottom up" thing turn out for us? You know...the stimulus that you were pushing to be passed back in the Fall of 2008? What a surprise that one of the strongest supporters of income redistribution would lapse into using the term trickle down. But hey, at least you finally named someone who had some background in economics!!!

And you lie and lie and lie. robert did not say anything about income redistribution. that, me poor dumb con, is a repub term. Income redistribution in practice has been increasing income for the wealthy. They have become more wealthy, the middle class and below less so. And, oldstyle, if you would like to argue that point, go ahead, for I will bury you on this one. You simply posted a con dogma statement. Nice try.
by the way, your favorite economist, you say he is your proof that trickle down is not a theory. I think you are lying again. I can find no such statement from him. Are you lying again??? I think so, dipshit. You are again lying.

I quoted him directly from his book, oh great economics guru! It's called "Basic Economics" and it's something that YOU'VE obviously never read.

And the quote is?? I am not interested in looking through his text.

And no I did not read his text, dipshit. Apparently you are unaware that there are multiple texts for basic econ. Apparently you have had to little econ experience to know that.

 

[Rshermr]

And you lie and lie and lie. robert did not say anything about income redistribution. that, me poor dumb con, is a repub term. Income redistribution in practice has been increasing income for the wealthy. They have become more wealthy, the middle class and below less so. And, oldstyle, if you would like to argue that point, go ahead, for I will bury you on this one. You simply posted a con dogma statement. Nice try.
by the way, your favorite economist, you say he is your proof that trickle down is not a theory. I think you are lying again. I can find no such statement from him. Are you lying again??? I think so, dipshit. You are again lying.

]I quoted him directly from his book, oh great economics guru! It's called "Basic Economics" and it's something that YOU'VE obviously never read.

And the quote is?? I am not interested in looking through his text.

And no I did not read his text, dipshit. Apparently you are unaware that there are multiple texts for basic econ. Apparently you have had to little econ experience to know that.

Only Joe Biden would make someone who wasn't an economist his "chief economist"! I guess when you are as clueless as Joe it's hard to tell if someone else is clueless as well. You gotta love that shit! the shit I love is someone with as little economic background as you making stupid statements about the guys credentials. You have no real idea. I know lightweights like you get off on college titles. But there is a lot more to a person than their degree. And you are making statements about a guy who is VERY well respected. And only NBC could be so sloppy that they didn't check what his educational background was either. Who should we believe? Go read the guy's bio you ass hat. We wonder why the government is so screwed up? You've got a guy working as the "Deputy Chief Economist at the U.S. Dept. of Labor that isn't an economist!!! Well, dipshit, maybe you should look at his title. He is indeed. And relative to his background for the job. why don't you try to apply. These are the people you want running our health care system? We'll have Oprah Winfrey appointed as the Surgeon General.

So, me higly qualified pundit. Seems to me that you are a restraunt manager. So, I find your opinion useless. Dipshit. A fucking food services flunky making claims about a high ranking economist. You are a clown. And completely delusional. Saying a guy with Bernsteins title and job experience is not an economist does not pass the giggle test, dipshit. You have a history degree. And you are flipping burgers, or some such. So, does not having a degree in food preparation, or whatever menial degree you would need for what you do, mean that you can not be called a cook??

You are really trying hard to not prove the points you have been trying to make. All you do is run down people that you do not know. But you are completely unable to prove your two points:
1. That trickle down is not a theory.
2. That trickle down is not a repub idea, or said another way, that it is a concept made up by proponents of income distribution.

I think you have absolutely nothing. You said it, now you can not back it up. I think you are lying again. Are you lying again, oldstyle? Are you about to run as you did last time you were cornered like a garbage rat????

 

[Rshermr]

The following is another New York Times article written by your other "noted economist", Robert Frank. You'll note that he's rather OUTSPOKEN about his view that economics shouldn't be a dispassionate examination of statistics but that they have a "moral" duty to do what's right. You wonder why Frank keeps harping away at an economic "theory" (trickle-down theory) that doesn't exist? It's because it fits his POLITICS...just as I said and just as Sowell pointed out.

Income Inequality: Too Big to Ignore
By ROBERT H. FRANK
Published: October 16, 2010


"PEOPLE often remember the past with exaggerated fondness. Sometimes, however, important aspects of life really were better in the old days.
Enlarge This Image

David G. Klein
Related

Letters: That Wide Income Gap (October 24, 2010)
During the three decades after World War II, for example, incomes in the United States rose rapidly and at about the same rate — almost 3 percent a year — for people at all income levels. America had an economically vibrant middle class. Roads and bridges were well maintained, and impressive new infrastructure was being built. People were optimistic.

By contrast, during the last three decades the economy has grown much more slowly, and our infrastructure has fallen into grave disrepair. Most troubling, all significant income growth has been concentrated at the top of the scale. The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent.

Yet many economists are reluctant to confront rising income inequality directly, saying that whether this trend is good or bad requires a value judgment that is best left to philosophers. But that disclaimer rings hollow. Economics, after all, was founded by moral philosophers, and links between the disciplines remain strong. So economists are well positioned to address this question, and the answer is very clear.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, was a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. His first book, “A Theory of Moral Sentiments,” was published more than 25 years before his celebrated “Wealth of Nations,” which was itself peppered with trenchant moral analysis.

Some moral philosophers address inequality by invoking principles of justice and fairness. But because they have been unable to forge broad agreement about what these abstract principles mean in practice, they’ve made little progress. The more pragmatic cost-benefit approach favored by Smith has proved more fruitful, for it turns out that rising inequality has created enormous losses and few gains, even for its ostensible beneficiaries.

Recent research on psychological well-being has taught us that beyond a certain point, across-the-board spending increases often do little more than raise the bar for what is considered enough. A C.E.O. may think he needs a 30,000-square-foot mansion, for example, just because each of his peers has one. Although they might all be just as happy in more modest dwellings, few would be willing to downsize on their own.

People do not exist in a social vacuum. Community norms define clear expectations about what people should spend on interview suits and birthday parties. Rising inequality has thus spawned a multitude of “expenditure cascades,” whose first step is increased spending by top earners.

The rich have been spending more simply because they have so much extra money. Their spending shifts the frame of reference that shapes the demands of those just below them, who travel in overlapping social circles. So this second group, too, spends more, which shifts the frame of reference for the group just below it, and so on, all the way down the income ladder. These cascades have made it substantially more expensive for middle-class families to achieve basic financial goals.

In a recent working paper based on census data for the 100 most populous counties in the United States, Adam Seth Levine (a postdoctoral researcher in political science at Vanderbilt University), Oege Dijk (an economics Ph.D. student at the European University Institute) and I found that the counties where income inequality grew fastest also showed the biggest increases in symptoms of financial distress.

For example, even after controlling for other factors, these counties had the largest increases in bankruptcy filings.

Divorce rates are another reliable indicator of financial distress, as marriage counselors report that a high proportion of couples they see are experiencing significant financial problems. The counties with the biggest increases in inequality also reported the largest increases in divorce rates.

Another footprint of financial distress is long commute times, because families who are short on cash often try to make ends meet by moving to where housing is cheaper — in many cases, farther from work. The counties where long commute times had grown the most were again those with the largest increases in inequality.

The middle-class squeeze has also reduced voters’ willingness to support even basic public services. Rich and poor alike endure crumbling roads, weak bridges, an unreliable rail system, and cargo containers that enter our ports without scrutiny. And many Americans live in the shadow of poorly maintained dams that could collapse at any moment.

ECONOMISTS who say we should relegate questions about inequality to philosophers often advocate policies, like tax cuts for the wealthy, that increase inequality substantially. That greater inequality causes real harm is beyond doubt.

But are there offsetting benefits?

There is no persuasive evidence that greater inequality bolsters economic growth or enhances anyone’s well-being. Yes, the rich can now buy bigger mansions and host more expensive parties. But this appears to have made them no happier. And in our winner-take-all economy, one effect of the growing inequality has been to lure our most talented graduates to the largely unproductive chase for financial bonanzas on Wall Street.

In short, the economist’s cost-benefit approach — itself long an important arrow in the moral philosopher’s quiver — has much to say about the effects of rising inequality. We need not reach agreement on all philosophical principles of fairness to recognize that it has imposed considerable harm across the income scale without generating significant offsetting benefits.

No one dares to argue that rising inequality is required in the name of fairness. So maybe we should just agree that it’s a bad thing — and try to do something about it."

And your point is???
Obviously you will never believe that there is an economist who says trickle down is a theory. You, the food services guy, make your statements. You can not back them up. Yet the web is full of statements that trickle down IS a theory. Not that I give a shit, actually. But it is obvious that you are lying. You have no proof that trickle down is NOT a theory. So, we should believe a food services guy instead of a series of economists, well respected business leader, on line encyclopedias, and so on. If you think you are going to win this based on your resume, you are delusional. And an obvious liar. Never saw anyone try so hard to get out of a lie as you, dipshit. You are wasting everyone's time, and you do not care. You make your statements, say you have some proof somewhere, but can not produce. Because you are a liar, and you are delusional.

 

[rdean]

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.

This is the wrong board for that message. When I said that small business said that "demand" is the number one thing that creates jobs, right wingers on this site said everything from, "That is absurd" to "you know nothing about economics". So when I linked to several small business associations that said the same thing, they said either they refused to go read such nonsense or said those weren't really "small business" sites.

I honestly can't figure out what they believe other than "I hate government".

 

[Oldstyle]

The number one thing that has ALWAYS created jobs and the number one thing that always WILL create jobs is anticipation of profit...it's what makes a free market economy function...and it's the thing that progressives seem to have the hardest time understanding because they are ALWAYS trying to take away profits in the name of "fairness".

 

[rdean]

The number one thing that has ALWAYS created jobs and the number one thing that always WILL create jobs is anticipation of profit...it's what makes a free market economy function...and it's the thing that progressives seem to have the hardest time understanding because they are ALWAYS trying to take away profits in the name of "fairness".

Business always "anticipates" profits. But if no one buys, there is no profit and "anticipation" is merely a "feeling".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlwnbcxBuzI]I see you shiver with anticipation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oldstyle]

The following is another New York Times article written by your other "noted economist", Robert Frank. You'll note that he's rather OUTSPOKEN about his view that economics shouldn't be a dispassionate examination of statistics but that they have a "moral" duty to do what's right. You wonder why Frank keeps harping away at an economic "theory" (trickle-down theory) that doesn't exist? It's because it fits his POLITICS...just as I said and just as Sowell pointed out.

Income Inequality: Too Big to Ignore
By ROBERT H. FRANK
Published: October 16, 2010


"PEOPLE often remember the past with exaggerated fondness. Sometimes, however, important aspects of life really were better in the old days.
Enlarge This Image

David G. Klein
Related

Letters: That Wide Income Gap (October 24, 2010)
During the three decades after World War II, for example, incomes in the United States rose rapidly and at about the same rate — almost 3 percent a year — for people at all income levels. America had an economically vibrant middle class. Roads and bridges were well maintained, and impressive new infrastructure was being built. People were optimistic.

By contrast, during the last three decades the economy has grown much more slowly, and our infrastructure has fallen into grave disrepair. Most troubling, all significant income growth has been concentrated at the top of the scale. The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent.

Yet many economists are reluctant to confront rising income inequality directly, saying that whether this trend is good or bad requires a value judgment that is best left to philosophers. But that disclaimer rings hollow. Economics, after all, was founded by moral philosophers, and links between the disciplines remain strong. So economists are well positioned to address this question, and the answer is very clear.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, was a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. His first book, “A Theory of Moral Sentiments,” was published more than 25 years before his celebrated “Wealth of Nations,” which was itself peppered with trenchant moral analysis.

Some moral philosophers address inequality by invoking principles of justice and fairness. But because they have been unable to forge broad agreement about what these abstract principles mean in practice, they’ve made little progress. The more pragmatic cost-benefit approach favored by Smith has proved more fruitful, for it turns out that rising inequality has created enormous losses and few gains, even for its ostensible beneficiaries.

Recent research on psychological well-being has taught us that beyond a certain point, across-the-board spending increases often do little more than raise the bar for what is considered enough. A C.E.O. may think he needs a 30,000-square-foot mansion, for example, just because each of his peers has one. Although they might all be just as happy in more modest dwellings, few would be willing to downsize on their own.

People do not exist in a social vacuum. Community norms define clear expectations about what people should spend on interview suits and birthday parties. Rising inequality has thus spawned a multitude of “expenditure cascades,” whose first step is increased spending by top earners.

The rich have been spending more simply because they have so much extra money. Their spending shifts the frame of reference that shapes the demands of those just below them, who travel in overlapping social circles. So this second group, too, spends more, which shifts the frame of reference for the group just below it, and so on, all the way down the income ladder. These cascades have made it substantially more expensive for middle-class families to achieve basic financial goals.

In a recent working paper based on census data for the 100 most populous counties in the United States, Adam Seth Levine (a postdoctoral researcher in political science at Vanderbilt University), Oege Dijk (an economics Ph.D. student at the European University Institute) and I found that the counties where income inequality grew fastest also showed the biggest increases in symptoms of financial distress.

For example, even after controlling for other factors, these counties had the largest increases in bankruptcy filings.

Divorce rates are another reliable indicator of financial distress, as marriage counselors report that a high proportion of couples they see are experiencing significant financial problems. The counties with the biggest increases in inequality also reported the largest increases in divorce rates.

Another footprint of financial distress is long commute times, because families who are short on cash often try to make ends meet by moving to where housing is cheaper — in many cases, farther from work. The counties where long commute times had grown the most were again those with the largest increases in inequality.

The middle-class squeeze has also reduced voters’ willingness to support even basic public services. Rich and poor alike endure crumbling roads, weak bridges, an unreliable rail system, and cargo containers that enter our ports without scrutiny. And many Americans live in the shadow of poorly maintained dams that could collapse at any moment.

ECONOMISTS who say we should relegate questions about inequality to philosophers often advocate policies, like tax cuts for the wealthy, that increase inequality substantially. That greater inequality causes real harm is beyond doubt.

But are there offsetting benefits?

There is no persuasive evidence that greater inequality bolsters economic growth or enhances anyone’s well-being. Yes, the rich can now buy bigger mansions and host more expensive parties. But this appears to have made them no happier. And in our winner-take-all economy, one effect of the growing inequality has been to lure our most talented graduates to the largely unproductive chase for financial bonanzas on Wall Street.

In short, the economist’s cost-benefit approach — itself long an important arrow in the moral philosopher’s quiver — has much to say about the effects of rising inequality. We need not reach agreement on all philosophical principles of fairness to recognize that it has imposed considerable harm across the income scale without generating significant offsetting benefits.

No one dares to argue that rising inequality is required in the name of fairness. So maybe we should just agree that it’s a bad thing — and try to do something about it."

And your point is???
Obviously you will never believe that there is an economist who says trickle down is a theory. You, the food services guy, make your statements. You can not back them up. Yet the web is full of statements that trickle down IS a theory. Not that I give a shit, actually. But it is obvious that you are lying. You have no proof that trickle down is NOT a theory. So, we should believe a food services guy instead of a series of economists, well respected business leader, on line encyclopedias, and so on. If you think you are going to win this based on your resume, you are delusional. And an obvious liar. Never saw anyone try so hard to get out of a lie as you, dipshit. You are wasting everyone's time, and you do not care. You make your statements, say you have some proof somewhere, but can not produce. Because you are a liar, and you are delusional.

The food service industry, Rshermr...is one of the most cut-throat industries out there. The margins you work within are minute, labor costs are high, product costs fluctuate wildly and the competition with other operators is brutal. You call me a "food service guy" as an insult to my capabilities which simply shows how ignorant you are to what goes into being a "food service guy". Yes, I have been in the food & beverage industry for thirty years at some of the most high profile places in the country. That's a badge I wear with pride, not shame.

As for the validity of my statements? This is simple stuff, Sparky...show me where someone is teaching "trickle down theory" as a viable economic theory. If it really is an actual economic theory like Supply Side then it will be taught somewhere. If it is simply a derisive term used by opponents of Supply Side economics then you will find it in places like you have provided...liberal blogs and in articles railing for income redistribution.

 

[Oldstyle]

The number one thing that has ALWAYS created jobs and the number one thing that always WILL create jobs is anticipation of profit...it's what makes a free market economy function...and it's the thing that progressives seem to have the hardest time understanding because they are ALWAYS trying to take away profits in the name of "fairness".

Business always "anticipates" profits. But if no one buys, there is no profit and "anticipation" is merely a "feeling".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlwnbcxBuzI]I see you shiver with anticipation - YouTube[/ame]

If a thousand people are willing to buy your product for a dollar but it costs you more than that to produce the product you are not going to make the product. The anticipation of profit is what causes a free market system to expand not demand. There may actually not be a profit realized in the long run but it is ALWAYS the anticipation of profit that starts the ball rolling.

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...you've got Deanie here to argue for you, Rshermr! Now you're REALLY screwed!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

And you lie and lie and lie. robert did not say anything about income redistribution. that, me poor dumb con, is a repub term. Income redistribution in practice has been increasing income for the wealthy. They have become more wealthy, the middle class and below less so. And, oldstyle, if you would like to argue that point, go ahead, for I will bury you on this one. You simply posted a con dogma statement. Nice try.
by the way, your favorite economist, you say he is your proof that trickle down is not a theory. I think you are lying again. I can find no such statement from him. Are you lying again??? I think so, dipshit. You are again lying.

I quoted him directly from his book, oh great economics guru! It's called "Basic Economics" and it's something that YOU'VE obviously never read.

And the quote is?? I am not interested in looking through his text.

And no I did not read his text, dipshit. Apparently you are unaware that there are multiple texts for basic econ. Apparently you have had to little econ experience to know that.

Ah, I already PROVIDED the quote, Einstein. Did you want me to scroll back up through this string and find it for you? Or do you think you could take a moment out of your "trickle down" Google search and do it yourself? Hard to believe...but you've been such an idiot in this string you're starting to make Deanie look intelligent!

 

[Rshermr]

I quoted him directly from his book, oh great economics guru! It's called "Basic Economics" and it's something that YOU'VE obviously never read.

And the quote is?? I am not interested in looking through his text.

And no I did not read his text, dipshit. Apparently you are unaware that there are multiple texts for basic econ. Apparently you have had to little econ experience to know that.

Ah, I already PROVIDED the quote, Einstein. Did you want me to scroll back up through this string and find it for you? Or do you think you could take a moment out of your "trickle down" Google search and do it yourself? Hard to believe...but you've been such an idiot in this string you're starting to make Deanie look intelligent!

Yup. Because you lie a lot. So I would like to see the ACTUAL quote. Or just the message number.
relative to your opinion of me, as you know, it so hurts, because I have SUCH respect for you.

And by the way. You still need to provide your proof for where you say the the term trickle down came from; I gave you definitive proof, which you of course reject. But you have provided none of your own.

So, here is what it looks like to me. You are lying again, wasting every one's time. You want us to believe two things, both obviously bullshit.

One, that trickle down is not a theory. For which, I have provided 15 or so sources saying it is. You have no way of winning that one. A pure attempt to prove something that prove nothing if you could win this one, but there is no possible way. Oh, you will complain about the sources, etc, etc. But you have lost it. And it makes you look like what you are, a liar.
Two, that trickle down was coined by income distributors who were democrats. Again, you have no proof. Because no one that is anything like impartial, and honest, will say what you would like them to say. Even the repubs out there support what Reagan's Budget Director said, which was, and pay attention, now, oldstyle, trickle down was developed to provide support from the not so rich for supply side economics. And, every independent source that wants to talk about it says the same. Most simply refer to Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director for proof. You see, he was there. Then there is the fact that YOU HAVE NO SOURCE FOR YOUR ACCUSATIONS. Just you, only you, and you have NO source to back you up. And again, you are a food services guy. Why was it that we were to believe you, oldstyle. Because, you are doing your normal thing. Attacking dems. That is what you always do. And Lying, and Lying, and Lying. And wasting everyone's time.