Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The problem with the supply driven theory is that it's so unreliable. Just because you give tax cuts to the wealthy doesn't mean it's gong to trickle down. If the wealthy get a tax break, they may invest in expanding US businesses but they also may invest abroad, in gold, in treasuries, or just put it in bank waiting for a stronger economy.
If sales are rising and economic forecasts are improving, business will expand if funds are available, but if consumers sales are lackluster, and forecasts are very mixed, businesses will sit on cash as will investors, just as was done over the last few years.
However, on the demand side, money put in the hands of the poor or middle class when times are hard will be spent creating an incentive for business to expand.
IMHO, the best way to simulate the economy is to push money to the poor and middle class when sales are contracting, then as sales pick up introduce tax cuts, and maintain low interest rates. However, it tax rates are already very low, the deficit is high, and interest rates are rock bottom when we enter a recession as was the case in 2009, then we're screwed. Any stimulus we apply will have negative long term effects.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.The problem with the supply driven theory is that it's so unreliable. Just because you give tax cuts to the wealthy doesn't mean it's gong to trickle down. If the wealthy get a tax break, they may invest in expanding US businesses but they also may invest abroad, in gold, in treasuries, or just put it in bank waiting for a stronger economy.
If sales are rising and economic forecasts are improving, business will expand if funds are available, but if consumers sales are lackluster, and forecasts are very mixed, businesses will sit on cash as will investors, just as was done over the last few years.
However, on the demand side, money put in the hands of the poor or middle class when times are hard will be spent creating an incentive for business to expand.
IMHO, the best way to simulate the economy is to push money to the poor and middle class when sales are contracting, then as sales pick up introduce tax cuts, and maintain low interest rates. However, it tax rates are already very low, the deficit is high, and interest rates are rock bottom when we enter a recession as was the case in 2009, then we're screwed. Any stimulus we apply will have negative long term effects.
Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.The problem with the supply driven theory is that it's so unreliable. Just because you give tax cuts to the wealthy doesn't mean it's gong to trickle down. If the wealthy get a tax break, they may invest in expanding US businesses but they also may invest abroad, in gold, in treasuries, or just put it in bank waiting for a stronger economy.
If sales are rising and economic forecasts are improving, business will expand if funds are available, but if consumers sales are lackluster, and forecasts are very mixed, businesses will sit on cash as will investors, just as was done over the last few years.
However, on the demand side, money put in the hands of the poor or middle class when times are hard will be spent creating an incentive for business to expand.
IMHO, the best way to simulate the economy is to push money to the poor and middle class when sales are contracting, then as sales pick up introduce tax cuts, and maintain low interest rates. However, it tax rates are already very low, the deficit is high, and interest rates are rock bottom when we enter a recession as was the case in 2009, then we're screwed. Any stimulus we apply will have negative long term effects.
Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
Is there a point in that sentence???
Looks like you are saying that trickle down was never part of Supply Side? Correct??
funny.I don't see the word trickle anywhere.Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
Is there a point in that sentence???
Looks like you are saying that trickle down was never part of Supply Side? Correct??
obviously when capitalism makes poor people richer than rich people were 50 years ago "trickle down" capitalism is really "flood down" capitalism.
funny.I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
Is there a point in that sentence???
Looks like you are saying that trickle down was never part of Supply Side? Correct??
obviously when capitalism makes poor people richer than rich people were 50 years ago "trickle down" capitalism is really "flood down" capitalism.
Ed does not understand that a 1963 car cost a whole lot less than that same car does today.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.The problem with the supply driven theory is that it's so unreliable. Just because you give tax cuts to the wealthy doesn't mean it's gong to trickle down. If the wealthy get a tax break, they may invest in expanding US businesses but they also may invest abroad, in gold, in treasuries, or just put it in bank waiting for a stronger economy.
If sales are rising and economic forecasts are improving, business will expand if funds are available, but if consumers sales are lackluster, and forecasts are very mixed, businesses will sit on cash as will investors, just as was done over the last few years.
However, on the demand side, money put in the hands of the poor or middle class when times are hard will be spent creating an incentive for business to expand.
IMHO, the best way to simulate the economy is to push money to the poor and middle class when sales are contracting, then as sales pick up introduce tax cuts, and maintain low interest rates. However, it tax rates are already very low, the deficit is high, and interest rates are rock bottom when we enter a recession as was the case in 2009, then we're screwed. Any stimulus we apply will have negative long term effects.
Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
Is there a point in that sentence???
Looks like you are saying that trickle down was never part of Supply Side? Correct??
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
Is there a point in that sentence???
Looks like you are saying that trickle down was never part of Supply Side? Correct??
Yes, only the economically clueless call supply-side, trickle down.
Trickle down and consumer driven spending both provide incentives to expand business. However, I think increased consumer spending is much more reliable.DISCLAIMER: Yes, I consider myself a liberal. But I also consider myself independent and this post is an honest quest for understanding. Trolls need not apply.
Trickle down theory--the idea that cutting taxes for businesses and upper-middle to rich folks, or the "job makers", will lead to economic growth and wealth "trickling down" to the lower class--seems to make sense. If the people who make business decisions have more money, they will be more likely to expand their business, thereby generating more work and wages in general. It's logical!
Today, there's plenty of signs that the job makers are doing significantly better: Dow is at record highs, business profits are up, etc. Yet wages for the average worker are stagnant. The Bush II tax cuts didn't improve the economy, at least not in the short run, and helped spur record deficits. (Not cause, but help.) The gap between the poor and the rich has widened.
So here's my question: Where is the money?
Again, I mean that sincerely. If supply side is real, money should be trickling down to the workers--but it's not. That said, the money has to be somewhere! Are the job makers hording cash in banks? Overseas investments? What???
In the trickle down theory, when taxes are cut for the wealthy, business will expand because the wealthy will invest more. Here's the problem. A businesses will not expand if the economy is contracting. Only a fool would expand his business when faced with falling sales or low expectations. A windfall such as a tax cut is likely to go into liquid assets such as treasury bills to be invested once sales are rising again.
If we put money in the hands of the poor and middle class, they will spend the money increasing sales because unlike the wealth they have no other alternative. Increasing sales is a far better incentive to expand than just having funds available to expand. The only time trickle down works is when business can't raise money for expansion and the economy outlook is reasonably good.
Trickle down economics works about as well as pouring a bucket of water on the top of a sandy hill. The water is quickly absorbed long before it reaches the bottom.
Trickle down which was coined by Will Rogers is layman lingo for Supply Side.I don't see the word trickle anywhere.Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
Is there a point in that sentence???
Looks like you are saying that trickle down was never part of Supply Side? Correct??
Yes, only the economically clueless call supply-side, trickle down.
Trickle down which was coined by Will Rogers is layman lingo for Supply Side.I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
Is there a point in that sentence???
Looks like you are saying that trickle down was never part of Supply Side? Correct??
Yes, only the economically clueless call supply-side, trickle down.
"Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.
Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So I do not see the two as the same, but I did hear a whole lot of how Supply Side economics would RESULT in trickle down. It was used to sell supply side. Developed during the Reagan admin as a tool to sell against the concept that folks had that Supply Side benefited the wealthy but not the masses.I don't see the word trickle anywhere.Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
Is there a point in that sentence???
Looks like you are saying that trickle down was never part of Supply Side? Correct??
Yes, only the economically clueless call supply-side, trickle down.
So I do not see the two as the same, but I did hear a whole lot of how Supply Side economics would RESULT in trickle down. It was used to sell supply side. Developed during the Reagan admin as a tool to sell against the concept that folks had that Supply Side benefited the wealthy but not the masses.I don't see the word trickle anywhere.
Is there a point in that sentence???
Looks like you are saying that trickle down was never part of Supply Side? Correct??
Yes, only the economically clueless call supply-side, trickle down.
Do you not see that as true??
So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.So I do not see the two as the same, but I did hear a whole lot of how Supply Side economics would RESULT in trickle down. It was used to sell supply side. Developed during the Reagan admin as a tool to sell against the concept that folks had that Supply Side benefited the wealthy but not the masses.Yes, only the economically clueless call supply-side, trickle down.
Do you not see that as true??
No, trickle down was used by the economically illiterate, not to sell supply side.
So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.So I do not see the two as the same, but I did hear a whole lot of how Supply Side economics would RESULT in trickle down. It was used to sell supply side. Developed during the Reagan admin as a tool to sell against the concept that folks had that Supply Side benefited the wealthy but not the masses.
Do you not see that as true??
No, trickle down was used by the economically illiterate, not to sell supply side.
So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.No, trickle down was used by the economically illiterate, not to sell supply side.
So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down
No, it was the economically illiterate Dems who coined trickle down.
I see. And your link for this???So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.No, trickle down was used by the economically illiterate, not to sell supply side.
So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down
No, it was the economically illiterate Dems who coined trickle down.
"The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didnt know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands.So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.So I do not see the two as the same, but I did hear a whole lot of how Supply Side economics would RESULT in trickle down. It was used to sell supply side. Developed during the Reagan admin as a tool to sell against the concept that folks had that Supply Side benefited the wealthy but not the masses.
Do you not see that as true??
No, trickle down was used by the economically illiterate, not to sell supply side.
"The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.”So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.No, trickle down was used by the economically illiterate, not to sell supply side.
Within an article by Will Rogers in the St. Petersburg Times - Nov 26, 1932
So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.
So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down
No, it was the economically illiterate Dems who coined trickle down.
But certainly an apt description, where ever it came from.
I see. And your link for this???So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down to sell supply side? Who are the economically illiterate you are speaking of?? I am sure you have a link to that concept.
So, you do not believe that the Reagan admin developed the idea of using trickle down
No, it was the economically illiterate Dems who coined trickle down.
