Trickle-down wealth--A myth adhered to by BOTH parties

[nat4900]

Indeed, over the years -- at least since the 1980s Reagan era -- the idea of trickle down wealth has been more quasi-religious belief than empirically supported fact. The Republican right just wants to believe that "trick down" works, and seem immune to both argument and research that points to the contrary. I doubt there's anything that will lead them to change their mind.

Perhaps more pernicious is the current policy of the Federal Reserve (and central banks around the world). By keeping interest rates artificially low they have herded money into the stock market. The capital gains thus produced disproportionately benefit the 1%, and in turn create greater economic inequality. Interestingly, this is a policy that is supported as much by liberals as conservatives. One observes the ludicrous situation of Janet Yellen lecturing against rising inequality at the same time the policies she is enacting is one of the principal drivers of said inequality.

 

[MisterBeale]

However, what is the upshot of raising interest rates? The whole system would collapse over night. They all know it. Thus, they are feverishly preparing for a switch over to an international currency. When they are ready to switch and they are sure they can control the rioting, the starvation, the general discontent and malaise, then they will raise the rates.

A hiccup occurred recently when the Chinese created their own international system of finance in the east. Now the international picture needs to be readjusted. It was supposed to happen this fall. Who knows now?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Indeed, over the years -- at least since the 1980s Reagan era -- the idea of trickle down wealth has been more quasi-religious belief than empirically supported fact. The Republican right just wants to believe that "trick down" works, and seem immune to both argument and research that points to the contrary. I doubt there's anything that will lead them to change their mind.

Perhaps more pernicious is the current policy of the Federal Reserve (and central banks around the world). By keeping interest rates artificially low they have herded money into the stock market. The capital gains thus produced disproportionately benefit the 1%, and in turn create greater economic inequality. Interestingly, this is a policy that is supported as much by liberals as conservatives. One observes the ludicrous situation of Janet Yellen lecturing against rising inequality at the same time the policies she is enacting is one of the principal drivers of said inequality.

Indeed.The american sheep have been brainwashed and programmed their whole lives that Reagan boosted the economy when it was just the opposite.I have taken many Reagan apologists to school on this too many times to remember here.

Be careful that crusader frank doesnt see this. He is USMB'S resident troll. I have to believe that he is a distant cousin of Reagan.I have never seen anyone take it so personal like he does when the facts of Reagan are exposed.He needs to change his user name to Crusader RETARD.

He makes up outright lies about him and throws temper tantrems going into meltdown mode when anybody exposes the myth of his idol Reagan.

He wont watch this video because it has too many pesky little facts that shoot down the myth that Reagan helped the economy and proves he got the ball rolling ruinng the economy.Him and the other Reagan apologists wont watch it since they only see what they want to see.



anytime I make a thread that exposes Obamas corruption,I tell him to get the hell off my thread because sheep like him dont help the cause by not dealing with reality that Reagan was the most corrupt president ever at the time.

 

[BluesLegend]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

 

[healthmyths]

What did you use 40 years ago to write these comments?

 

[g5000]

Indeed, over the years -- at least since the 1980s Reagan era -- the idea of trickle down wealth has been more quasi-religious belief than empirically supported fact. The Republican right just wants to believe that "trick down" works, and seem immune to both argument and research that points to the contrary. I doubt there's anything that will lead them to change their mind.

Perhaps more pernicious is the current policy of the Federal Reserve (and central banks around the world). By keeping interest rates artificially low they have herded money into the stock market. The capital gains thus produced disproportionately benefit the 1%, and in turn create greater economic inequality. Interestingly, this is a policy that is supported as much by liberals as conservatives. One observes the ludicrous situation of Janet Yellen lecturing against rising inequality at the same time the policies she is enacting is one of the principal drivers of said inequality.

Agreed. ZIRP is making bankers rich at the expense of everyone else. It is encouraging spending and punishing saving. You have to be able to pull off astronomical carry trades to make money from ZIRP, and only the uber-giant broker-dealers can do that.

It's completely bogus.

This is the kind of shit I am talking about when I say taxing the rich more won't cure the disease.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

well at least the reagan worshippers such as their ringleader crusader retard have not come on here which is a major surprise.

 

[The Rabbi]

Indeed, over the years -- at least since the 1980s Reagan era -- the idea of trickle down wealth has been more quasi-religious belief than empirically supported fact. The Republican right just wants to believe that "trick down" works, and seem immune to both argument and research that points to the contrary. I doubt there's anything that will lead them to change their mind.

Perhaps more pernicious is the current policy of the Federal Reserve (and central banks around the world). By keeping interest rates artificially low they have herded money into the stock market. The capital gains thus produced disproportionately benefit the 1%, and in turn create greater economic inequality. Interestingly, this is a policy that is supported as much by liberals as conservatives. One observes the ludicrous situation of Janet Yellen lecturing against rising inequality at the same time the policies she is enacting is one of the principal drivers of said inequality.

Since you dont understand what "trickle down wealth" means (hint: There is no such thing) you appear to be a fool for posting this.

 

[Misty]

Who do you work for? A company? The company pays you. You spend the money which in turn enables another company to pay their employees.

That is trickled down. It moves money around the economy at the choice of the company and the worker.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who do you work for? A company? The company pays you. You spend the money which in turn enables another company to pay their employees.

That is trickled down. It moves money around the economy at the choice of the company and the worker.

That may be what "trickle down" means to some people. But it isnt what "Supply Side Economics" is all about.

 

[nat4900]

Newsflash, wealth is earned you have to get off your fat lazy welfare ass and work.

The above nitwit gets his economy strategies from reading Chinese fortune cookies.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It would be much easier to listen to this if the current economy was doing well but it ain't and the only time the economy was doing well was when it was in the hands of conservatives. Just compare bush to Obama....or just compare Obama to any American president after 1980 and you will see that the free market is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, a great many people in this country listen to your side which means that this will continue indefinitely until people stop listening to you.

 

[nat4900]

It would be much easier to listen to this if the current economy was doing well but it ain't and the only time the economy was doing well was when it was in the hands of conservatives. Just compare bush to Obama....or just compare Obama to any American president after 1980 and you will see that the free market is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, a great many people in this country listen to your side which means that this will continue indefinitely until people stop listening to you.

No, facts dispute your assertion. The "free market" has NOT been hindered by Obama...as a matter of fact, Obama has kept the same tax cuts as GWB.......and Bush-baby placed 2 wars and Medicare expansions on a credit card, leaving the bills for other administrations (and, of course, us) to deal with.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It would be much easier to listen to this if the current economy was doing well but it ain't and the only time the economy was doing well was when it was in the hands of conservatives. Just compare bush to Obama....or just compare Obama to any American president after 1980 and you will see that the free market is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, a great many people in this country listen to your side which means that this will continue indefinitely until people stop listening to you.

No, facts dispute your assertion. The "free market" has NOT been hindered by Obama...as a matter of fact, Obama has kept the same tax cuts as GWB.......and Bush-baby placed 2 wars and Medicare expansions on a credit card, leaving the bills for other administrations (and, of course, us) to deal with.

He actually let the bush tax cuts expire which is the same as not voting for them. You sound young and naive so not everything Obama tells you is true. It is pointed out that the deficit grew under Reagan which is true but Reagan spoke honestly and said that that washes biggest mistake. He acknowledge that and wished he could have prevented. There are so many ways to destroy the free market such as environmental rules that change daily. How do you pl a n economically around that? Consider that companies plan years in advance. Imagine how much planning could they do if the rules changed daily.

Reagan wasn't perfect either. How much he had to do with Iran contra is still debated to this day.

 

[Skylar]

Who do you work for? A company? The company pays you. You spend the money which in turn enables another company to pay their employees.

That is trickled down. It moves money around the economy at the choice of the company and the worker.

Supply side economics is based on the idea that economic growth is best facilitated by focusing on the suppliers of goods, services and investment capital, making it easier for them to produce their goods or service or to lend their money.

The problem with this logic is obtusely simple: the economic strength of a company isn't based on how much it can produce. Its based on how much it can sell.

Supply will always find demand. But demand won't necessarily find supply. If my factory can produce a 100,000 8 track players a week, that doesn't mean there will be a market for them.

Which is why smart economic policy is focused on putting as much money in the hands of consumers as possible. As it is the purchase and consumption of goods and services that drives the economy. Not the supply of them.

The result of a supply side focus has been a stagnation of the passage of the economic benefits of the increases of productivity to those actually producing the goods or service. Which means that the buying power of the average consumer has been stagnant. With increasingly large segments of business being B2B transactions. With 'suppliers' selling to each other. And proportionally less to their domestic consumers.

The net result has been unprecedented and fantastic wage and wealth growth in the upper tiers of the economy who own the supply side. And relative stagnation for every one else on the consumer end.

The comic part of this is the insistence that the solution is MORE focus on the supply side and less on the consumer side as a way of combating the very problems that supply side focus precipitated.

It would be the logical equivalent of insisting that since 350F burned the souffle that the way to solve the problem is to crank it up to 500F.

Um, no.

 

[Skylar]

As an aside, the stock market has virtually nothing to do with our economic strength or vitality. As it barely involves the rest of the economy. Almost all stock transactions are from hedge funds to hedge funds. Controlled by several 10s of thousands of people at most.

If you added up all the other stock transactions made by ordinary consumers, they make up less than 1% of the total shares bought or sold.

Its almost entirely a sealed system at this point. The only thing coming from the outside is capital. The only thing that changes is the proportion of that capital controlled by a given hedge fund.

Which is why they're pushing for the privatization of social security. As it would constitute hundreds of billions of dollars of new capital into these hedge fund transactions. None of which actually benefits the company that issued the stock.

If a hedge fund buys Apple At 105 and sells at 125, Apple doesn't get a penny.

So with the exception of IPOs, which are quite rare or the sale of additional shares from a company, which are also very rare, none of this money actually benefits industry. But will dramatically increase the amount of wealth held by a given hedge fund. With some hedge funds controlled by as few as 10 people.

Its one of the most profoundly useless industries imaginable. As it builds nothing, produces nothing, improves nothing, develops nothing, provides no service, creates no good. Yet siphons hundreds of billions from our economy in exchange for one thing:

Slightly faster liquidity.

A thousandth of a second rather than only a 100th for a stock transaction to occur. Which, as noted above.....is almost always these same people trading with each other. So they are virtually the sole consumer of the only 'product' that they create.

As I said: fucking useless.

 

[nat4900]

He actually let the bush tax cuts expire which is the same as not voting for them. You sound young and naive so not everything Obama tells you is true. It is pointed out that the deficit grew under Reagan which is true but Reagan spoke honestly and said that that washes biggest mistake. He acknowledge that and wished he could have prevented. There are so many ways to destroy the free market such as environmental rules that change daily. How do you pl a n economically around that? Consider that companies plan years in advance. Imagine how much planning could they do if the rules changed daily.

Actually, to you I may sound "young" (as would anyone who disagrees with you) but I'm almost 70 with my sanity all intact. Here's what Obama did regarding tax cuts:

President Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 on a promise to raise taxes on the wealthy, saying families making more than $250,000 a year (and individuals making more than $200,000) should pay what they paid under President Bill Clinton: a top rate of 39.6 percent. Tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush cut that rate to 35 percent.

Battling with Republicans in Congress in 2010, Obama relented and agreed to a two-year extension of everyone's rates. But even then, he vowed that he wouldn't let the low rates stand for the wealthiest Americans indefinitely.

In late 2012, with the fiscal cliff crisis pressuring both sides to act, Obama came out of the ordeal with a compromise. A law passed just before 11 p.m. on Jan. 1, 2013, permanently raised rates on families making more than $450,000 and $400,000 for individuals.

However, you FAIL to address my questions as to how Bush planned to pay for the TWO wars and Medicare Advantage....but I don't blame right wingers for this.....Its a tough question to address.

 

[nat4900]

The problem with this logic is obtusely simple: the economic strength of a company isn't based on how much it can produce. Its based on how much it can sell.

Supply will always find demand. But demand won't necessarily find supply. If my factory can produce a 100,000 8 track players a week, that doesn't mean there will be a market for them.

Well stated, unfortunately it takes nothing short of a 2x4 over right wingers' heads to get this simple point across.

 

[nat4900]

Right wingers like to cite that we have the highest tax rate for businesses....but what they constantly fail to address is that virtually NONE of the big businesses are paying anything even close to that rate; tax loop holes and deferred "incomes" make the entire tax code a freaking joke.

Tax breaks to the wealthy have just made them wealthier and clients of oversea banks......The only "investment' that huge companies still readily make within our own shores is those huge donations (bribes) to politicians,

 

[Skylar]

The problem with this logic is obtusely simple: the economic strength of a company isn't based on how much it can produce. Its based on how much it can sell.

Supply will always find demand. But demand won't necessarily find supply. If my factory can produce a 100,000 8 track players a week, that doesn't mean there will be a market for them.

Well stated, unfortunately it takes nothing short of a 2x4 over right wingers' heads to get this simple point across.

Ford nailed it. He paid a very high wage for his day so that his workers....could become customers. His company flourished because he was sellling more cars. And he sold more cars because more consumers could afford them.

Focus on the consumer base, and the supply side takes care of itself. As there will be companies falling all over each other to meet demand. But they can't do dick if consumers can't afford to buy their product.