The case for trickle up economics

Exactly. That's the point! Investors base their decisions on what the market is asking for or what the market research tells them. If the market doesn't want a product, an investor doesn't create a product because he knows it wont sell. And similarly, if the market doesn't have money to spend, an investor knows to hold off until the market can afford to spend on what he wants to produce.

So ultimately it's the market and it's power to purchase that will drive the economy.
Not really. The main power of the economy is not based upon invention, but upon needs.

I agree

A person sees a location that has a deficit of grocery stores, and so he or she opens one. They hire locally. They purchase their goods for sale from local distributors. That is trickle down economics.
That is the market determining the need. Not the person with the money to invest.

A rural area has limited to no internet access. A person creates a company, hires employees to string cable, install or build computers, market the service and employes hundreds of people. Trickle down economics.
Again fueled by consumer demand, not because a rich person had money to invest.

Yes that investment money then spurs growth and job creation, and additional business to pop up, but its all dependent on that initial spark which comes from consumer needs and consumer purchasing power.
Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

If there was no one around to supply the need, then everyone is destitute.

It takes a willingness to risk yourself and your family to provide goods and products to people who need them.

Even at the dawn of our species, people starved unless someone figured out how to plant a crop and harvest it. They then sold some of that harvest to their neighbors for a pig, or chicken..or some cloth that they owned.

However, that would not have been sufficient. The risk taker grew more than he or the one neighbor could eat, so he sold his goods further afield to people who could not provide that for themselves.

And that is the key. They could not provide it for themselves, but they could get it if they had a means of earning something of value that the producer of that item wanted.

It is synergistic system. But make no mistake.

The people who take no risk, create no jobs. They can demand all the food they want, but if no one is willing to open a grocery store, they're going to starve. Or learn to produce themselves.

It trickles down, or people die.
 
What kind of tax breaks can we give to the poor that they don't already have? They pay no income tax and there is no sales tax on food stamp purchases. LBJ created the "war on poverty" more than forty years ago and thanks to the democrat plantation mentality we have more people on the federal dole than we ever had.

that's the plan...and we are about to the point of no return for our country
 
Not really. The main power of the economy is not based upon invention, but upon needs.

I agree

That is the market determining the need. Not the person with the money to invest.

A rural area has limited to no internet access. A person creates a company, hires employees to string cable, install or build computers, market the service and employes hundreds of people. Trickle down economics.
Again fueled by consumer demand, not because a rich person had money to invest.

Yes that investment money then spurs growth and job creation, and additional business to pop up, but its all dependent on that initial spark which comes from consumer needs and consumer purchasing power.
Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

If there was no one around to supply the need, then everyone is destitute.

It takes a willingness to risk yourself and your family to provide goods and products to people who need them.

Even at the dawn of our species, people starved unless someone figured out how to plant a crop and harvest it. They then sold some of that harvest to their neighbors for a pig, or chicken..or some cloth that they owned.

However, that would not have been sufficient. The risk taker grew more than he or the one neighbor could eat, so he sold his goods further afield to people who could not provide that for themselves.

And that is the key. They could not provide it for themselves, but they could get it if they had a means of earning something of value that the producer of that item wanted.

It is synergistic system. But make no mistake.

The people who take no risk, create no jobs. They can demand all the food they want, but if no one is willing to open a grocery store, they're going to starve. Or learn to produce themselves.

It trickles down, or people die.

I get it, and I think you do too...deep down in there. You keep alluding to the fact that it's needs that drives the market yet refuse to allow yourself to believe it. The person that grew extra crops didn't do so on a hunch, he did so because he knew there was a need. Sure there is a risk involved with any venture, but it's doing your research and understanding the market that alleviates some of that risk. It's knowing your audience and what they want and need that determines the success of your product.
 
I agree

That is the market determining the need. Not the person with the money to invest.

Again fueled by consumer demand, not because a rich person had money to invest.

Yes that investment money then spurs growth and job creation, and additional business to pop up, but its all dependent on that initial spark which comes from consumer needs and consumer purchasing power.
Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

If there was no one around to supply the need, then everyone is destitute.

It takes a willingness to risk yourself and your family to provide goods and products to people who need them.

Even at the dawn of our species, people starved unless someone figured out how to plant a crop and harvest it. They then sold some of that harvest to their neighbors for a pig, or chicken..or some cloth that they owned.

However, that would not have been sufficient. The risk taker grew more than he or the one neighbor could eat, so he sold his goods further afield to people who could not provide that for themselves.

And that is the key. They could not provide it for themselves, but they could get it if they had a means of earning something of value that the producer of that item wanted.

It is synergistic system. But make no mistake.

The people who take no risk, create no jobs. They can demand all the food they want, but if no one is willing to open a grocery store, they're going to starve. Or learn to produce themselves.

It trickles down, or people die.

I get it, and I think you do too...deep down in there. You keep alluding to the fact that it's needs that drives the market yet refuse to allow yourself to believe it. The person that grew extra crops didn't do so on a hunch, he did so because he knew there was a need. Sure there is a risk involved with any venture, but it's doing your research and understanding the market that alleviates some of that risk. It's knowing your audience and what they want and need that determines the success of your product.
Of course needs drive the market. however, needs do NOT create prosperity.

You simply cannot fulfill any need in this world without wealth first...It trickles down.
 
What kind of tax breaks can we give to the poor that they don't already have? They pay no income tax and there is no sales tax on food stamp purchases. LBJ created the "war on poverty" more than forty years ago and thanks to the democrat plantation mentality we have more people on the federal dole than we ever had.

Why don't you be poor then? It's a wonderful life.
 
No one wanted an iPod? LOL.

Great response...the iPod was a shitty idea that was simply popular just because Steve Jobs had money.

Solid response....:eusa_eh:

Where were those millions of people clamoring for one before they were invented?
Simp.

Not surprisingly you're missing the point. I'm not saying that the rich can't invent something that people want. The point is that simply having money to invest doesn't guarantee a product will be successful. The market determines which products make it and which products don't, not how deep the pockets of the inventor are.

Duh. Thanks, Capt Obvious.
Yeah, lots of products get invented and then fail. Every one of them though provided income for others until they failed.
Wow, what you don't know.
 
What kind of tax breaks can we give to the poor that they don't already have? They pay no income tax and there is no sales tax on food stamp purchases. LBJ created the "war on poverty" more than forty years ago and thanks to the democrat plantation mentality we have more people on the federal dole than we ever had.

Why don't you be poor then? It's a wonderful life.

why don't you...
 
My point has been made. Consumers drive the market, not people with deep pockets. </thread>
 
The case for trickle up economics is pretty simple.

The lands that have the richest rich people also have the richest working class people.

Why?

Because in a capitalist society when the average person is doing pretty well the people on top of that heap are doing much MUCH better.
 
PRODUCTIVITY creates the WEALTH that gives people the wherewithal to to satisfy their demands.


Bullshit. American worker productivity is the highest it has ever been and the wages of the high productivity worker have been flat for years.

Where is the supposed "wealth" for the worker?

And "satisfy their demands". Wtf does that mean?
 
PRODUCTIVITY creates the WEALTH that gives people the wherewithal to to satisfy their demands.


Bullshit. American worker productivity is the highest it has ever been and the wages of the high productivity worker have been flat for years.

You are swallowing the Lefty goo.

"Who doesn't have a refrigerator today?" asks Steckel, 66, an Ohio State University economist. "People grossly underestimate our progress over time because of technology."

The nation is recovering from its worst recession in decades and the unemployment rate is above 9%. Yet the nation's standard of living — by almost any standard — is better than ever, or close to it.

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found only 31% of Americans thought they could live comfortably for less than $50,000 a year. One-fourth thought it would take $100,000 or more to make them comfortable.

That's roughly the same result as when Americans were asked the same question in 1987, after adjusting for inflation.

What's different today — what stretches the ordinary imagination — is how much richer we've become than at any time in the past. USA TODAY compared life today to 1980 to show how life has changed since Ronald Reagan was elected president and during the adulthood of Baby Boomers, the 77 million born from 1946 through 1964.
The average annual income was $24,079 per person in 1980 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Last year, it was $40,454 per person.
'

Living standards improve, despite tough economy - USATODAY.com

Productivity gains is the key to National wealth. Just ask China and India.
 
PRODUCTIVITY creates the WEALTH that gives people the wherewithal to to satisfy their demands.


Bullshit. American worker productivity is the highest it has ever been and the wages of the high productivity worker have been flat for years.

You are swallowing the Lefty goo.

Ahh, nothing better than starting your day with a good dick sucking reference. Stay consistent!
 

Forum List

Back
Top