The Derp
Gold Member
- Apr 12, 2017
- 9,620
- 661
- 205
- Banned
- #681
Not until they create new or expand existing businesses.
By why would they create a new business, or expand one if there's no increase in their revenues? This is getting back to the magical thinking I was referring to earlier with you...where your economic policy relies on the faith that there is invisible demand that can only be satisfied by providing a supply first. The Field of Dreams approach to economics, if you will..."if you build it, they will come". Yeah, that only works in the movies. Increasing the supply does nothing to increase demand. Wrong part of the equation, pal. A business only expands if they have growing revenues to justify it. No bank is ever going to give your business a loan to expand if your revenues are flat or declining.
As long as you ignore every time it's been done.
Which has been never. So I'm ignoring nothing. Literally, nothing.
Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.
First of all, NO IT ISN'T. An economy only expands when there is spending. If you are not spending, then you are not growing the economy. Increased savings means money is not going into the consumer economy, where it increases consumer demand in order to create jobs. Instead, the money is sitting in banks, not being lent out, not used to "invest", and not making its way into the consumer economy. Increased savings is not a positive at all. Money needs to circulate in order for the economy to grow. If everyone decides at one time that they are going to pull back their spending in order to save, what do you think is the effect on the economy?
As long as you ignore every time it's been done.
Which has been never. So I'm ignoring nothing. Literally, nothing.
Rich people are investing all the time.That's how they got rich.
Nooooooooo...that's not how they got rich. There are myriad ways for people to be rich, but a lot of rich people today inherited their wealth...which means they did nothing to earn it other than be born and not drown in a bowl of soup. Or they got it by winning the lottery. Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US. Global profits are where the game is now being played. That's what they're working towards. Handing rich people a tax break means they're just as likely to "invest" that tax break in a third world country as they would be here in the US. You cannot make such a statement that they are investing all the time without the caveat of where they may be doing this "investing". You want us to believe it's all domestic. The reality is that it mostly all global.
Your theory is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses.
Yup.
Which is why it's just a theory and not reality.
YThe reality is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts Why would they do that?.
Because they're not patriotic and don't care about this country.
or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
Pour it into derivatives? LOL!
Liberals are funny with all their financial idiocy.
Unfortunately for you, that is precisely what they did. That's how the secondary and tertiary markets became so inflated. Someone was pouring gobs of money into those markets beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007. We know it wasn't the middle class or lower class because their household debt was doubling during Bush the Dumber. So who was doing all this gambling, and with whose money were they doing it? We already know the wealthy increased their savings during the Bush Tax Cuts. Since 460,000 jobs were lost from January 2001 to January 2009, the "savings" the wealthy were making...the same ones you say are "invested"...must have been going into the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets, right? Because it wasn't going to business creation or expansion, as evidenced by the decline in employment over the 8 year period.
And that, friends, is how you destroy a right-wing argument.
Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.
The only way you can manufacture demand is through mandates. "If you build it, they will come" is magical thinking.
So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth,They do both.
Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber. They didn't create jobs or growth in Kansas. So why would they magically start working now?
We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush.And 4 years under Obama.
Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012. Remember that? You all said that if he did that, it would lead to a recession, job loss, and a market collapse. Wrong on all three. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?
Federal tax cuts create deficits. Always have, always will You said they cut state and local spending. Were you lying?
If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap. In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits. Arizona did that very thing last year. Kansas too. Which would mean that the entire Conservative economic philosophy is dependent on welfare in order to survive. Which would technically make Conservatism the ultimate in welfare dependency.