Consumers create jobs.

[Oldstyle]

What I feel sorry for is a man who is SO insecure about himself that he has to make up stories about how he taught economics in college so people will take his opinions seriously.

A man who supposedly graduated with a degree in economics but can't explain basic economic theory and doesn't know who one of the preeminent economists of our time is.

You know what you are, Rshermr? You're the real life George Costanza of this board...someone who lies about who they are to try and win an argument on the internet. What are you going to be next week...a "marine biologist"?

Not A Lie | Shirtoid

George Costanza Marine Biologist | Shirtoid

Oldstyle, what is interesting is that it is you who believe that I am trying to impress people by telling you that I taught economics for a year. That was true. I believe that you know that. But, I am not in the least impressed. Teaching economics to economics non majors for a prof who did not want to do so is less than impressive. You see, oldstyle, I was teaching a based on a proffs lesson plan, to mostly freshmen who had to take econ but really did not care much. And grading papers and tests. So, you seem to think that is impressive. Though you keep saying it is a lie. But it is true, oldstyle, i gave you the info you wanted to get you off the subject.
But, oldstyle, when you have no game, you go back to this issue. Because you have no backing for the economic argument that you are stating, EXCEPT for one very questionable economist who you have been talking about for the past thirty posts. Just one. Over and over and over and over. If your definition of trickle down has any validity, find more sources. Mine has hundreds. Yours so far has ONE. The reason it has one is that it is untrue. It is dogma. It is drivel. The definition I gave you of trickle down is not my definition, but the definition of every source I can find.
So, if you think telling you I taught economics for a year was to make myself look good, then what does it say about you, oldstyle. As I told you, you are talking about something that happened in 1969 and 1970. If you understand math, that is over 40 years ago. And it is nothing that I feel any pride about, just part of my history. Not at all impressive. So, the idea that you find such a thing impressive tells me that you must be a very unimpressive person. So, yes, oldstyle, I do feel sorry for you. All that you can do is attack.
So, are you out of excuses, now. I have provided you with the definition of trickle down multiple times, and all you have done is to go back to what your favorite (and only) source has to say, over and over and over and over. No other source. You are pathetic.

Impressive? No...I think the word that fits best is unbelievable. First of all because you don't seem to KNOW anything about economics or economists...and secondly because the only place that underclassmen teach college courses is in your George Costanza fantasy world.

 

[Perry2016]

Expat_panama...according to the latest Census numbers, there are around 300,000,000 people living in this country. It is ludicrous for you to say that over 142,000,000 are unemployed. You must be counting children under 18 and retired individuals. Before spewing out numbers like that, check them. The total amount unemployed is most likely 14,000,000. To go even further, total corporate profits for the last quarter of 2011 alone were $1.6 trillion dollars or thereabouts, meaning that if they wanted to, these so called "job creators" could put their greed aside and end unemployment effectively by reinvesting in the people who buy their goods and services. Corporations would be nothing without the consumer.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says:

Impressive? No...I think the word that fits best is unbelievable. First of all because you don't seem to KNOW anything about economics or economists...and secondly because the only place that underclassmen teach college courses is in your George Costanza fantasy world.

So, oldstyle. As I suspected, you have nothing in the way of defense of your statements. Just personal attacks at this point. When you are going for old Seinfeld quotes, you are dredging the bottom as far as making any kind of an economic argument. I know that you are aware of how much I value your opinion. Apparently your pathetic argument of what trickle down is, supported by one libertarian, far right economist, whom we know that you worship, is all that you have. I know you have been looking for some non partisan economist to support the really crazy definition, but you will not find it. Even though you are an economic expert, at least in your own mind. You see, oldstyle, you are dreaming. You came up with a definition that is so stupid, so far from any definition that anyone who does not have an agenda and has studied the subject would believe, that you are now painted into your own corner. Nothing left to do but work at changing the subject. Or you could go back to the same old definition, again, as you have over and over and over. Just to waste some more time. Up to you, dipshit. Oh, by the way, I think people do not go to get info on either economics or college policy from food service workers, like you, oldstyle.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if consumers create jobs what do people like Steve Jobs do if not create jobs and seek workers to fill those jobs???????

 

[Rshermr]

Expat_panama...according to the latest Census numbers, there are around 300,000,000 people living in this country. It is ludicrous for you to say that over 142,000,000 are unemployed. You must be counting children under 18 and retired individuals. Before spewing out numbers like that, check them. The total amount unemployed is most likely 14,000,000. To go even further, total corporate profits for the last quarter of 2011 alone were $1.6 trillion dollars or thereabouts, meaning that if they wanted to, these so called "job creators" could put their greed aside and end unemployment effectively by reinvesting in the people who buy their goods and services. Corporations would be nothing without the consumer.

don't confuse expat with facts and figures. He is more into dogma and attacks.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Expat_panama...according to the latest Census numbers, there are around 300,000,000 people living in this country. It is ludicrous for you to say that over 142,000,000 are unemployed. You must be counting children under 18 and retired individuals. Before spewing out numbers like that, check them. The total amount unemployed is most likely 14,000,000. To go even further, total corporate profits for the last quarter of 2011 alone were $1.6 trillion dollars or thereabouts, meaning that if they wanted to, these so called "job creators" could put their greed aside and end unemployment effectively by reinvesting in the people who buy their goods and services. Corporations would be nothing without the consumer.

don't confuse expat with facts and figures. He is more into dogma and attacks.

dogma is merely information presented authoritatively. Our Founders were into dogma about freedom. What's wrong with that??????

 

[Oldstyle]

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2006, AND THEREAFTER
COMMON SENSE ECONOMICS

Professors James Gwartney (Florida State University), Richard Stroup (Montana State University) and Dwight Lee (Georgia University), three longtime colleagues of mine, have recently published "Common Sense Economics." It's a small book, less than 200 pages, that addresses a serious economist dereliction of duty: making our subject understandable to the ordinary person.
Public misunderstanding of basic economic principles leaves us easy prey to political quacks, charlatans and assorted hustlers. Part I of "Common Sense" focuses on 10 key elements of economics that I'll only briefly describe.

The first is incentives matter. During the 1970s, gasoline prices rose dramatically. Immediately, people did more carpooling and eliminated unimportant trips. Gradually, they shifted to more fuel-efficient cars. During the 1980s and 1990s, gasoline prices fell. Again, people altered their behavior by buying more SUVs and more powerful cars.

Incentives matter under socialism, too. In the former USSR, managers and employees were compensated by the number of tons of glass they produced. Factories produced glass so thick one could hardly see through it. The rules were changed so that compensation was made according to square meters of glass produced. Factories produced glass so thin that it broke easily.
The second element is there's nothing that's free. Politicians talk about "free education," "free medicine" or "free housing," but that's nonsense. Resources are required to produce each of them. Of course, some people received these goods at a zero price, but that doesn't mean they didn't cost someone, usually a taxpayer, something.

Their third element is we don't make all-or-nothing decisions such as choosing between eating or wearing clothes, that is, dining in the nude so we can afford food. Instead, we choose between having a little more food at the cost of a little less clothing.
Their fourth element is that trade promotes economic progress through encouraging specialization. That's true whether the trade is between individuals, regions or countries. Specialization and trade make us dependent upon one another, but not to worry. The world's poorest people are far more independent than we. Check out Darfur. You might see families building their own shelter, gathering their own food and heating supplies, and making their own clothing. The flip side of the idea that trade promotes progress, and their fifth element, is the idea that obstacles to trade stymie progress. Among these political obstacles are taxes, licenses, regulations, price controls, tariffs and quotas.

Elements six and seven are related. Profits direct resources to their highest value uses. Losses free misused resources for higher value uses. People earn income by serving their fellow man. This link between serving others and income gives us incentive to develop talents and skills and become highly valued.

Elements eight and nine address the other keys to progress: Investment, better ways of doing things, sound economic institutions, and Adam Smith's idea that market prices direct buyers and sellers toward activities that promote the general welfare.
Their tenth element is crucial. We shouldn't ignore the secondary and long-term effects of an action. For example, trade restrictions on foreign sugar that result in higher prices for domestically produced sugar save jobs in our sugar industry. Because of those higher prices, major candy manufacturers such as Wrigley and Brach's moved to Canada and Mexico to take advantage of lower sugar prices. That resulted in more U.S. jobs lost than were saved by the sugar trade restrictions.

"Common Sense," subtitled "What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity," contains a wealth of information about the major sources of economic progress, economic progress and the role of government, and important elements of practical personal finance. The latter contains finance principles on how to invest your money, using the principles of compound interest and how to get more out of your money. There's nothing in the book that goes beyond common sense, something rare these days.

Common Sense Economics

 

[Oldstyle]

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2006, AND THEREAFTER
TAX CUT BENEFICIARIES

Click here to Print |

Republican and Democratic big government advocates whine about President Bush's proposed tax cuts, particularly cuts in the capital gains tax. They say it's a $70 billion giveaway to the rich. Listening to demagoguery about the rich, I've sometimes wished that we could find a humane way to get rid of the rich so that we might better focus on what's in the interests of the other 99.44 percent of us.

Let's talk about capital gains taxes starting out with a few questions for you. Suppose you see a couple highway construction projects. On one project, the workers are employed using shovels and wheelbarrows. At the other project, the workers are using huge earthmovers, cranes, asphalt-laying machines and other equipment. On which project do the workers earn the higher wage? You'll probably answer, "Those on the project with all the machinery." Now the question becomes, why? Is it because construction company owners like machine operators more? Or, is it because the machine operators have more bargaining power?

The answer to both questions is no. The correct answer is that the workers on the project using all the machinery are more productive. They are more productive because they have much more capital (equipment) working with them. As a result, more road is built per day, per worker, and their wages reflect that higher productivity.

Creating more equipment, whether it's earthmovers, computers or technical innovation, is called capital formation. The capital gains tax is a tax on capital formation, and when anything is taxed, one expects less of it. Less capital formation means a slower growth in wages. Roughly 95 percent of the growth in wages over the past 40 years is explained by the capital-to-labor ratio.
The capital gains tax dampens risk incentive. Put yourself in the place of an investor. You can invest in a utility company that's been earning a six percent rate of return for decades. Alternatively, you can invest in a high-tech, high-risk startup company. While such an investment has a high risk, and you stand to lose all of your money, success can deliver a potentially very high payoff. Capital gains taxes reduce your rate of return on the risk you have taken. Reduced rates of return mean that people will undertake less risk.

The capital gains tax has another debilitating effect on investment that's called the "lock-in" effect. People who have made a capital gain on an investment know that if they were to sell they would have to pay the capital gains tax. Therefore, for tax reasons, they often hold on to that investment longer than they otherwise would. With a reduction or elimination of the capital gains tax, instead of people's decisions being driven by tax considerations, they would focus more of their portfolio to areas in the economy with a higher long-run growth potential.

There are other taxes that impede capital formation, such as dividend and corporate profit taxes, but the capital gains taxes, as well as the death tax, are particularly vicious. In 2004, the capital gains tax generated $56 billion, about three percent of federal revenues. The death tax generated $25 billion, a little over one percent of federal revenues. The death tax, like the capital gains tax, has an impact on capital formation because people often have to sell producing assets. These high-powered dollars are shifted from production to government consumption. The capital gains tax and the death tax are insignificant in terms of federal revenue. They only serve our collective taste to tax the so-called rich.

President John Kennedy saw much of the folly in our anti-capital formation tax policy when he said, "The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy."

The Poverty Hype

 

[Oldstyle]

You want proof behind my claim that "trickle down theory" only exists as a pejorative in the quiver of progressive proponents of income redistribution? Go to The Economist...and try and find "trickle down theory" in their list of economic terms. It's not there. Why? Because it's not a REAL economic theory...that's why.

Tangible assets
Tariff
Tax arbitrage
Tax avoidance
Tax base
Tax burden
Tax competition
Tax efficient
Tax evasion
Tax haven
Tax incidence
Taxation
Technical progress
Terms of trade
Third way
Tick
Tiger economies
Time series
Time value of money
Tobin, James
Total return
Trade
Trade area
Trade cycle
Trade deficit/surplus
Trade unions
Trade-weighted exchange rate
Tragedy of the commons
Transaction costs
Transfer pricing
Transfers
Transition economies
Transmission mechanism
Transparency
Treasury bills
Trough
Trust

Those are the T's in The Economists list of economic terms. Where "is" trickle down?

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says:

Those are the T's in The Economists list of economic terms. Where "is" trickle down?

So, if I understand you, you believe that since you can not find it in a list of terms, it must not exist. Even though the economist you revere, Sowell, discusses the term. And of course, if you enter trickle down in the search engine of the Economist web site, it appears over 100 times.
I thought anything your vaunted economist said made it a real term, oldstyle. Sorry, just a crappy joke. As is this attempt to change the subject. Remember, Sowell, whom you worship, gave you the meaning of trickle down, and you were out looking for someone to back him up. Keep looking.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle says:

Those are the T's in The Economists list of economic terms. Where "is" trickle down?

So, if I understand you, you believe that since you can not find it in a list of terms, it must not exist. Even though the economist you revere, Sowell, discusses the term. And of course, if you enter trickle down in the search engine of the Economist web site, it appears over 100 times.
I thought anything your vaunted economist said made it a real term, oldstyle. Sorry, just a crappy joke. As is this attempt to change the subject. Remember, Sowell, whom you worship, gave you the meaning of trickle down, and you were out looking for someone to back him up. Keep looking.

When Sowell "discusses the term"...it isn't to verify that it exists as an economic theory, Einstein...it's to make the point that it DOESN'T. Duh?

As for your contention that you've found 100 references to trickle down theory when you "searched" The Economist web site? Let's examine that claim...shall we?

I also searched "trickle down theory". This is an example of what heads that list:

"The property bust
Trickling in
The poster-child for the property crash is showing signs of cut-price life
Jun 16th 2012 | SESEÑA | from the print edition

Towards the vanishing point
FINDING the way in to the Residencial Francisco Hernando is easier than it used to be. Drivers making their way to the serried ranks of eight-storey buildings once billed as the “Manhattan of La Mancha” through its neighbouring industrial estate just look for the huge hoardings bearing the names of Spain's biggest banks—and remarkably low prices. Two-bedroom homes have been had for €65,000 ($81,000), or rented for €360 a month with an option to buy. And there is 100% financing for 40 years.

Once intended to triple the population of Seseña, 35km from Madrid, the 13,000-apartment project ground to a halt when Spain's property boom turned to bust. The rubbish-strewn plots not built on may stand empty for ever. But it is not quite the ghost town it once was. Last November both Santander and the Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo (CAM)—a former savings bank that was rescued by the state, cleaned up and sold on for one euro—began energetically selling the flats they had taken from the developer at discounts of around 50%. Santander has almost shifted the 580 apartments in the block it has on its hands. Another such block is owned by Banco Popular, according to the security guard who is as yet its only inhabitant.

In this section
Going to extra time
»Trickling in
Reprints
Related topics
Madrid
Spain
Santander
Pedro Torres, aged 60 and also a security guard, moved into one of the Santander apartments two weeks ago. “I used to work in construction, so I can tell that the quality is good,” he says. “We have two bedrooms and two bathrooms, wooden floors and a huge shared swimming pool—all for less than €70,000 cash. It would have cost €100,000 more in a town nearer Madrid.” Children splash in the pool and play on a small football pitch inside the shared central gardens, but Mr Torres says that the place is lifeless; many of the flats being sold are bought as knock-down investments. Shop fronts are bricked up, and all the bars and cafeterias are far off on the other side of the development.

What amenities there are may be precarious. Three-course set lunches for just €5 at La Caña, a bar, will allow for little profit. “People don't seem to have much money,” says Mari Carmen Sáenz, who opened a stationery shop opposite the primary school last September. “I don't know how long I can keep going.”"

So...did you find the reference to trickle down economics? LOL I didn't either, nor will anyone else. What you WILL find is the word trickle and the word down used in separate areas of that article. That's the kind of search result you get when something doesn't exist...the search program gives you the best that it CAN which is the above.

You know why you didn't cite ANY of The Economist's supposed 100 examples of "trickle down theory"? I'll tell you why...they are all as useless as the above one. You didn't cite any because they really don't EXIST. That's right...the preeminent publication on economics in the world doesn't seem to know that there IS a trickle down theory which certainly backs up Sowell's claim that it isn't an economic term at all but a political one.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says:

Those are the T's in The Economists list of economic terms. Where "is" trickle down?

So, if I understand you, you believe that since you can not find it in a list of terms, it must not exist. Even though the economist you revere, Sowell, discusses the term. And of course, if you enter trickle down in the search engine of the Economist web site, it appears over 100 times.
I thought anything your vaunted economist said made it a real term, oldstyle. Sorry, just a crappy joke. As is this attempt to change the subject. Remember, Sowell, whom you worship, gave you the meaning of trickle down, and you were out looking for someone to back him up. Keep looking.

When Sowell "discusses the term"...it isn't to verify that it exists as an economic theory, Einstein...it's to make the point that it DOESN'T. Duh?

As for your contention that you've found 100 references to trickle down theory when you "searched" The Economist web site? Let's examine that claim...shall we?

I also searched "trickle down theory". This is an example of what heads that list:

"The property bust
Trickling in
The poster-child for the property crash is showing signs of cut-price life
Jun 16th 2012 | SESEÑA | from the print edition

Towards the vanishing point
FINDING the way in to the Residencial Francisco Hernando is easier than it used to be. Drivers making their way to the serried ranks of eight-storey buildings once billed as the “Manhattan of La Mancha” through its neighbouring industrial estate just look for the huge hoardings bearing the names of Spain's biggest banks—and remarkably low prices. Two-bedroom homes have been had for €65,000 ($81,000), or rented for €360 a month with an option to buy. And there is 100% financing for 40 years.

Once intended to triple the population of Seseña, 35km from Madrid, the 13,000-apartment project ground to a halt when Spain's property boom turned to bust. The rubbish-strewn plots not built on may stand empty for ever. But it is not quite the ghost town it once was. Last November both Santander and the Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo (CAM)—a former savings bank that was rescued by the state, cleaned up and sold on for one euro—began energetically selling the flats they had taken from the developer at discounts of around 50%. Santander has almost shifted the 580 apartments in the block it has on its hands. Another such block is owned by Banco Popular, according to the security guard who is as yet its only inhabitant.

In this section
Going to extra time
»Trickling in
Reprints
Related topics
Madrid
Spain
Santander
Pedro Torres, aged 60 and also a security guard, moved into one of the Santander apartments two weeks ago. “I used to work in construction, so I can tell that the quality is good,” he says. “We have two bedrooms and two bathrooms, wooden floors and a huge shared swimming pool—all for less than €70,000 cash. It would have cost €100,000 more in a town nearer Madrid.” Children splash in the pool and play on a small football pitch inside the shared central gardens, but Mr Torres says that the place is lifeless; many of the flats being sold are bought as knock-down investments. Shop fronts are bricked up, and all the bars and cafeterias are far off on the other side of the development.

What amenities there are may be precarious. Three-course set lunches for just €5 at La Caña, a bar, will allow for little profit. “People don't seem to have much money,” says Mari Carmen Sáenz, who opened a stationery shop opposite the primary school last September. “I don't know how long I can keep going.”"

So...did you find the reference to trickle down economics? LOL I didn't either, nor will anyone else. What you WILL find is the word trickle and the word down used in separate areas of that article. That's the kind of search result you get when something doesn't exist...the search program gives you the best that it CAN which is the above.

You know why you didn't cite ANY of The Economist's supposed 100 examples of "trickle down theory"? I'll tell you why...they are all as useless as the above one. You didn't cite any because they really don't EXIST. That's right...the preeminent publication on economics in the world doesn't seem to know that there IS a trickle down theory which certainly backs up Sowell's claim that it isn't an economic term at all but a political one.

Oldstyle, the very confused oldstyle, says:

So...did you find the reference to trickle down economics? LOL I didn't either, nor will anyone else. What you WILL find is the word trickle and the word down used in separate areas of that article. That's the kind of search result you get when something doesn't exist...the search program gives you the best that it CAN which is the above.

You know why you didn't cite ANY of The Economist's supposed 100 examples of "trickle down theory"? I'll tell you why...they are all as useless as the above one. You didn't cite any because they really don't EXIST. That's right...the preeminent publication on economics in the world doesn't seem to know that there IS a trickle down theory which certainly backs up Sowell's claim that it isn't an economic term at all but a political one.

Wow, you are really trying hard. Three stars for effort, oldstyle. But you flunk the test on searching the Economist site, me boy. When you have a two word search term, then NEVER EVER search on those two words WITHOUT WRAPPING THEM with Quotes. As in "trickle down". If you search without the quotes, you will get all sorts of hits on trickle, and on down, that have nothing to do with what you are looking for.
So you just wasted a bunch of our time. I used the proper method, and found hundreds of hits. So will you should you care to. And then you can come back and waste more of everyone's time. Trying to prove that trickle down is not real, and is not a theory. Which, of course, is simply libertarian (in this case) drivel from your libertarian economist, Sowell. But of course, oldstyle, you have already admited that it does. You said the following:

You're supposedly an economics major who taught the subject yet you can't argue the basic premise behind trickle down theory...that supposedly profits trickle down from owners to the workers? How can that be?

Just can't make up your mind, can ya.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle says:

So, if I understand you, you believe that since you can not find it in a list of terms, it must not exist. Even though the economist you revere, Sowell, discusses the term. And of course, if you enter trickle down in the search engine of the Economist web site, it appears over 100 times.
I thought anything your vaunted economist said made it a real term, oldstyle. Sorry, just a crappy joke. As is this attempt to change the subject. Remember, Sowell, whom you worship, gave you the meaning of trickle down, and you were out looking for someone to back him up. Keep looking.

When Sowell "discusses the term"...it isn't to verify that it exists as an economic theory, Einstein...it's to make the point that it DOESN'T. Duh?

As for your contention that you've found 100 references to trickle down theory when you "searched" The Economist web site? Let's examine that claim...shall we?

I also searched "trickle down theory". This is an example of what heads that list:

"The property bust
Trickling in
The poster-child for the property crash is showing signs of cut-price life
Jun 16th 2012 | SESEÑA | from the print edition

Towards the vanishing point
FINDING the way in to the Residencial Francisco Hernando is easier than it used to be. Drivers making their way to the serried ranks of eight-storey buildings once billed as the “Manhattan of La Mancha” through its neighbouring industrial estate just look for the huge hoardings bearing the names of Spain's biggest banks—and remarkably low prices. Two-bedroom homes have been had for €65,000 ($81,000), or rented for €360 a month with an option to buy. And there is 100% financing for 40 years.

Once intended to triple the population of Seseña, 35km from Madrid, the 13,000-apartment project ground to a halt when Spain's property boom turned to bust. The rubbish-strewn plots not built on may stand empty for ever. But it is not quite the ghost town it once was. Last November both Santander and the Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo (CAM)—a former savings bank that was rescued by the state, cleaned up and sold on for one euro—began energetically selling the flats they had taken from the developer at discounts of around 50%. Santander has almost shifted the 580 apartments in the block it has on its hands. Another such block is owned by Banco Popular, according to the security guard who is as yet its only inhabitant.

In this section
Going to extra time
»Trickling in
Reprints
Related topics
Madrid
Spain
Santander
Pedro Torres, aged 60 and also a security guard, moved into one of the Santander apartments two weeks ago. “I used to work in construction, so I can tell that the quality is good,” he says. “We have two bedrooms and two bathrooms, wooden floors and a huge shared swimming pool—all for less than €70,000 cash. It would have cost €100,000 more in a town nearer Madrid.” Children splash in the pool and play on a small football pitch inside the shared central gardens, but Mr Torres says that the place is lifeless; many of the flats being sold are bought as knock-down investments. Shop fronts are bricked up, and all the bars and cafeterias are far off on the other side of the development.

What amenities there are may be precarious. Three-course set lunches for just €5 at La Caña, a bar, will allow for little profit. “People don't seem to have much money,” says Mari Carmen Sáenz, who opened a stationery shop opposite the primary school last September. “I don't know how long I can keep going.”"

So...did you find the reference to trickle down economics? LOL I didn't either, nor will anyone else. What you WILL find is the word trickle and the word down used in separate areas of that article. That's the kind of search result you get when something doesn't exist...the search program gives you the best that it CAN which is the above.

You know why you didn't cite ANY of The Economist's supposed 100 examples of "trickle down theory"? I'll tell you why...they are all as useless as the above one. You didn't cite any because they really don't EXIST. That's right...the preeminent publication on economics in the world doesn't seem to know that there IS a trickle down theory which certainly backs up Sowell's claim that it isn't an economic term at all but a political one.

Oldstyle, the very confused oldstyle, says:

So...did you find the reference to trickle down economics? LOL I didn't either, nor will anyone else. What you WILL find is the word trickle and the word down used in separate areas of that article. That's the kind of search result you get when something doesn't exist...the search program gives you the best that it CAN which is the above.

You know why you didn't cite ANY of The Economist's supposed 100 examples of "trickle down theory"? I'll tell you why...they are all as useless as the above one. You didn't cite any because they really don't EXIST. That's right...the preeminent publication on economics in the world doesn't seem to know that there IS a trickle down theory which certainly backs up Sowell's claim that it isn't an economic term at all but a political one.

Wow, you are really trying hard. Three stars for effort, oldstyle. But you flunk the test on searching the Economist site, me boy. When you have a two word search term, then NEVER EVER search on those two words WITHOUT WRAPPING THEM with Quotes. As in "trickle down". If you search without the quotes, you will get all sorts of hits on trickle, and on down, that have nothing to do with what you are looking for.
So you just wasted a bunch of our time. I used the proper method, and found hundreds of hits. So will you should you care to. And then you can come back and waste more of everyone's time. Trying to prove that trickle down is not real, and is not a theory. Which, of course, is simply libertarian (in this case) drivel from your libertarian economist, Sowell. But of course, oldstyle, you have already admited that it does. You said the following:

You're supposedly an economics major who taught the subject yet you can't argue the basic premise behind trickle down theory...that supposedly profits trickle down from owners to the workers? How can that be?

Just can't make up your mind, can ya.

So let's see some of the hundreds of hits you found...

 

[Oldstyle]

"By the time his 1999 book, Luxury Fever, was published and in his 2007 testimony, though, Frank had changed his argument. Interestingly, while he correctly used the term "supply-sider" in his 1985 book, by 1999 he no longer used that term; instead he used the disparaging term "trickle-down theory" to label the supply-side theory that changes in marginal tax rates affect economic behavior. (No supply-sider calls himself a trickle-down theorist: this is the term used exclusively by critics of supplyside economists. Frank's use of the term "trickle-down" suggests bad faith on his part.)"

There's one...it backs up Sowell's claim that the term is political in nature and used by critics of supply side economics.

 

[Rshermr]

"By the time his 1999 book, Luxury Fever, was published and in his 2007 testimony, though, Frank had changed his argument. Interestingly, while he correctly used the term "supply-sider" in his 1985 book, by 1999 he no longer used that term; instead he used the disparaging term "trickle-down theory" to label the supply-side theory that changes in marginal tax rates affect economic behavior. (No supply-sider calls himself a trickle-down theorist: this is the term used exclusively by critics of supplyside economists. Frank's use of the term "trickle-down" suggests bad faith on his part.)"

There's one...it backs up Sowell's claim that the term is political in nature and used by critics of supply side economics.

Congratulations, oldstyle. But it backs up nothing. Trickle down has become a joke over the years, as people have determined that it describes nothing about supply side. Because they have learned, as you have not, that supply side does not work and the theory that benefits would trickle down is nonsense.
take a look and find how many colleges teach a class about supply side econ. Or spend any real time at it. It has pretty well died away.

 

[Rshermr]

"By the time his 1999 book, Luxury Fever, was published and in his 2007 testimony, though, Frank had changed his argument. Interestingly, while he correctly used the term "supply-sider" in his 1985 book, by 1999 he no longer used that term; instead he used the disparaging term "trickle-down theory" to label the supply-side theory that changes in marginal tax rates affect economic behavior. (No supply-sider calls himself a trickle-down theorist: this is the term used exclusively by critics of supplyside economists. Frank's use of the term "trickle-down" suggests bad faith on his part.)"

There's one...it backs up Sowell's claim that the term is political in nature and used by critics of supply side economics.

So OLDSTYLE, still off on his quest to find sources for his definition of trickle down and who came up with the term, tries again:

"By the time his 1999 book, Luxury Fever, was published and in his 2007 testimony, though, Frank had changed his argument. Interestingly, while he correctly used the term "supply-sider" in his 1985 book, by 1999 he no longer used that term; instead he used the disparaging term "trickle-down theory" to label the supply-side theory that changes in marginal tax rates affect economic behavior. (No supply-sider calls himself a trickle-down theorist: this is the term used exclusively by critics of supplyside economists. Frank's use of the term "trickle-down" suggests bad faith on his part.)"

There's one...it backs up Sowell's claim that the term is political in nature and used by critics of supply side economics.

So, you did not like any of my sources ..Even though some were renoun economists. But I gave you links. You provide none. I do not even know who it is you are quoting. So, what you just provided is of no import. Someone is always saying something. What matters is the context and who it is doing the talking. Swing and a miss, oldstyle.
Is it really that hard, oldstyle. Looks like maybe you were just plain wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

"By the time his 1999 book, Luxury Fever, was published and in his 2007 testimony, though, Frank had changed his argument. Interestingly, while he correctly used the term "supply-sider" in his 1985 book, by 1999 he no longer used that term; instead he used the disparaging term "trickle-down theory" to label the supply-side theory that changes in marginal tax rates affect economic behavior. (No supply-sider calls himself a trickle-down theorist: this is the term used exclusively by critics of supplyside economists. Frank's use of the term "trickle-down" suggests bad faith on his part.)"

There's one...it backs up Sowell's claim that the term is political in nature and used by critics of supply side economics.

Congratulations, oldstyle. But it backs up nothing. Trickle down has become a joke over the years, as people have determined that it describes nothing about supply side. Because they have learned, as you have not, that supply side does not work and the theory that benefits would trickle down is nonsense.
take a look and find how many colleges teach a class about supply side econ. Or spend any real time at it. It has pretty well died away.

The only thing that trickle down has become over the years is a derogatory term used by progressives and liberals to attack supply side economics...it is EXACTLY what Thomas Sowell said it was, a straw man. You're right..trickle down DOESN'T describe anything about supply side economics but that's because it's basic premise...that profits trickle downward...is incorrect.

As for what college classes teach about economics? How would you know! You know about as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture. I would frankly be shocked if EVERY collegiate economics program didn't cover the theory of supply side economics.

 

[Rshermr]

"By the time his 1999 book, Luxury Fever, was published and in his 2007 testimony, though, Frank had changed his argument. Interestingly, while he correctly used the term "supply-sider" in his 1985 book, by 1999 he no longer used that term; instead he used the disparaging term "trickle-down theory" to label the supply-side theory that changes in marginal tax rates affect economic behavior. (No supply-sider calls himself a trickle-down theorist: this is the term used exclusively by critics of supplyside economists. Frank's use of the term "trickle-down" suggests bad faith on his part.)"

There's one...it backs up Sowell's claim that the term is political in nature and used by critics of supply side economics.

Congratulations, oldstyle. But it backs up nothing. Trickle down has become a joke over the years, as people have determined that it describes nothing about supply side. Because they have learned, as you have not, that supply side does not work and the theory that benefits would trickle down is nonsense.
take a look and find how many colleges teach a class about supply side econ. Or spend any real time at it. It has pretty well died away.

The only thing that trickle down has become over the years is a derogatory term used by progressives and liberals to attack supply side economics...it is EXACTLY what Thomas Sowell said it was, a straw man. You're right..trickle down DOESN'T describe anything about supply side economics but that's because it's basic premise...that profits trickle downward...is incorrect.

As for what college classes teach about economics? How would you know! You know about as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture. I would frankly be shocked if EVERY collegiate economics program didn't cover the theory of supply side economics.

Oldstyle says:
The only thing that trickle down has become over the years is a derogatory term used by progressives and liberals to attack supply side economics...it is EXACTLY what Thomas Sowell said it was, a straw man. You're right..trickle down DOESN'T describe anything about supply side economics but that's because it's basic premise...that profits trickle downward...is incorrect.

Trickle down was not, as you believe Sowell said, coined by critics. It was coined and developed by repubs in 1981 to justify tax decreases that were heavily toward the wealthy. The middle class was not at all thrilled. The term was not derogatory to the general public. But it has become so. As the promise of the repubs has not been met by supply side econ. And your continual quoting of Sowell is getting just a tad thread worn, don't you think oldstyle. You were off to find a referable supporting statement of the Sowell definition of trickle down. Remember. You sort of almost had one, but you do not want to reference it apparently. So, still only a libertarian economist with very, very close ties to Cato and the Koch bros. So, you keep pushing a definition of trickle down that so far only you and the economist you worship believe. Odd, oldstyle. Very, very odd.

As for what college classes teach about economics? How would you know! You know about as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture. I would frankly be shocked if EVERY collegiate economics program didn't cover the theory of supply side economics.

Relative to your critique of my knowledge of economics, you could not possibly know. You are a food services guy, with a background of two economic classes. And you spend your time looking at info from far right and libertarian web sites. Not real impressive, oldstyle. So you know how much I respect your opinion. the question did not come from me but from a right winger who was bemoning the fact that there are no longer major efforts by many colleges to teach supply side. For obvious reasons. To those who have interest in the truth, and who, unlike you, oldstyle, read info from a variety of economic sources. Your a con, and your purpose is simply to push dogma. This effort of yours to push the definition and origin of trickle down are a great example. Pure dogma. Attack the dems because you do not want to look at the truth. Sad.

 

[Oldstyle]

Congratulations, oldstyle. But it backs up nothing. Trickle down has become a joke over the years, as people have determined that it describes nothing about supply side. Because they have learned, as you have not, that supply side does not work and the theory that benefits would trickle down is nonsense.
take a look and find how many colleges teach a class about supply side econ. Or spend any real time at it. It has pretty well died away.

The only thing that trickle down has become over the years is a derogatory term used by progressives and liberals to attack supply side economics...it is EXACTLY what Thomas Sowell said it was, a straw man. You're right..trickle down DOESN'T describe anything about supply side economics but that's because it's basic premise...that profits trickle downward...is incorrect.

As for what college classes teach about economics? How would you know! You know about as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture. I would frankly be shocked if EVERY collegiate economics program didn't cover the theory of supply side economics.

Oldstyle says:
The only thing that trickle down has become over the years is a derogatory term used by progressives and liberals to attack supply side economics...it is EXACTLY what Thomas Sowell said it was, a straw man. You're right..trickle down DOESN'T describe anything about supply side economics but that's because it's basic premise...that profits trickle downward...is incorrect.

Trickle down was not, as you believe Sowell said, coined by critics. It was coined and developed by repubs in 1981 to justify tax decreases that were heavily toward the wealthy. The middle class was not at all thrilled. The term was not derogatory to the general public. But it has become so. As the promise of the repubs has not been met by supply side econ. And your continual quoting of Sowell is getting just a tad thread worn, don't you think oldstyle. You were off to find a referable supporting statement of the Sowell definition of trickle down. Remember. You sort of almost had one, but you do not want to reference it apparently. So, still only a libertarian economist with very, very close ties to Cato and the Koch bros. So, you keep pushing a definition of trickle down that so far only you and the economist you worship believe. Odd, oldstyle. Very, very odd.

As for what college classes teach about economics? How would you know! You know about as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture. I would frankly be shocked if EVERY collegiate economics program didn't cover the theory of supply side economics.

Relative to your critique of my knowledge of economics, you could not possibly know. You are a food services guy, with a background of two economic classes. And you spend your time looking at info from far right and libertarian web sites. Not real impressive, oldstyle. So you know how much I respect your opinion. the question did not come from me but from a right winger who was bemoning the fact that there are no longer major efforts by many colleges to teach supply side. For obvious reasons. To those who have interest in the truth, and who, unlike you, oldstyle, read info from a variety of economic sources. Your a con, and your purpose is simply to push dogma. This effort of yours to push the definition and origin of trickle down are a great example. Pure dogma. Attack the dems because you do not want to look at the truth. Sad.

You know what's pathetic about progressives like you, Rshermr? Someone points out a very obvious flaw in the liberal notion that profits flow downward under supply side economics when in fact they flow upwards and always have...but rather than refute that simple concept you start shoveling "dogma", "libertarian" and "Koch Brothers" at the wall hoping you can get something to stick.

Thomas Sowell isn't some Libertarian nutcase living out in the woods with a stash of guns and some anti government manifestos...he's a well respected conservative economist who has taught at some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the country as well as writing dozens of books on economics. He's pointed out in a very common sense manner that trickle down theory does not exist because workers are ALWAYS paid first, no matter if a profit is realized or not...and that investors and owners get paid last, if they ever get paid at all.

But common sense and Progressive economic policies go together like oil and water...which is why our economy continues to struggle and Barry continues to scratch his head and wonder why.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for who I am? I'm a Food & Beverage professional and have been for many years. My degree is in History. As for the two economics classes that I took in college...what's really sad is that it would appear I learned more about that subject in those two classes then you learned in four years as an Economics major. Could your college have really been THAT bad? Could ANY college have been that bad?

Your claim that I troll right wing sites is rather amusing since I was the guy who was taking his information from a "book" written by a widely respected economist and YOU were the guy quoting Irving Shishko from a blog!