Okay.... If It Is The Economy Stupid?

[Bonnie]

By Thomas Sowell:

Our current unemployment rate--5.4 percent--is one of the lowest in the world and one of the lowest in our history. Why then the hysteria about jobs? Because this is an election year and Senator Kerry is desperate for some issue that will rescue his faltering campaign.

According to the Kerry campaign, President Bush has "lost" over a million jobs since taking office. This of course assumes that jobs are Presidents' to win or lose.

In both administrations, as in all other administrations in the history of the the United States, all spending bills originated in the House of Representatives. Both Reagan and Clinton faced a House of Representatives controlled by the opposite party/

Neither President could create a deficit or a surplus.
More..........www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/printts20040910.shtml

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The truth doesn't matter to libs these days. As postmodernists they will all tell you: "Reality is perception". They're so convinced of the superiority of their ideas, despite all actual merit and proof, that they have no problem, lying, forging documents, whatever it takes. So sad.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I knew 'trickle-down' was a strawman.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I knew 'trickle-down' was a strawman.

No. That's actually true.

 

[DKSuddeth]

No. That's actually true.

that its a strawman? yes, I know.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

that its a strawman? yes, I know.

I deserved that! but come on "you know what I meant"!

 

[DKSuddeth]

I deserved that! but come on "you know what I meant"!

I do know, but can you explain this in the article without calling it a 'bone for the libs'?

People who hate to see tax cuts picture an entirely different scenario. Such people see "tax cuts for the rich" being done because of some theory that the money received by the rich will eventually "trickle down" to the poor.

No economist in the entire history of economics has ever had any such "trickle-down" theory. It is a complete straw man.

If you want to argue about the effects of any given cut in tax rates, that is fine. But those who dream up a "trickle-down theory" obviously do not want to confront the real arguments for tax cuts or the actual effects of these cuts.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I do know, but can you explain this in the article without calling it a 'bone for the libs'?

People who hate to see tax cuts picture an entirely different scenario. Such people see "tax cuts for the rich" being done because of some theory that the money received by the rich will eventually "trickle down" to the poor.

No economist in the entire history of economics has ever had any such "trickle-down" theory. It is a complete straw man.

If you want to argue about the effects of any given cut in tax rates, that is fine. But those who dream up a "trickle-down theory" obviously do not want to confront the real arguments for tax cuts or the actual effects of these cuts.

Yes. I can. Tax cuts for people who have the money to start businesses will actually start more and invest more in growing them when they get to keep more of their profits, creating more jobs for others. Also when they make more money they spend more, further stimulating further profit in other businesses.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Yes. I can. Tax cuts for people who have the money to start businesses will actually start more and invest more in growing them when they get to keep more of their profits, creating more jobs for others. Also when they make more money they spend more, further stimulating further profit in other businesses.

that doesn't explain why the author of the article says that trickle-down is a straw man.

Personally, I don't see why its called trickle-down, it should be called trickle-up.

 

[Bonnie]

Yes. I can. Tax cuts for people who have the money to start businesses will actually start more and invest more in growing them when they get to keep more of their profits, creating more jobs for others. Also when they make more money they spend more, further stimulating further profit in other businesses.

It seems so simple and obvious, J I can't figure out how so many miss this. And leave it to Suddeth to think this is a bone for libs LOL.............Still love ya Suddeth I give you many kudos for the attempt

A rising tide lifts all ships!!!!!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

that doesn't explain why the author of the article says that trickle-down is a straw man.

Personally, I don't see why its called trickle-down, it should be called trickle-up.

You tell me where my model of what happens is wrong. I don't care what this fool says. I know what history has proved and why it occurs.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It seems so simple and obvious, J I can't figure out how so many miss this. And leave it to Suddeth to think this is a bone for libs LOL.............Still love ya Suddeth I give you many kudos for the attempt

A rising tide lifts all ships!!!!!!!

DK, is the official USMB special project. We're like the Make A Wish Foundation for terminal case libs who wish to wise up before they die.

 

[Bonnie]

DK, is the official USMB special project. We're like the Make A Wish Foundation for terminal case libs who wish to wise up before they die.

Well I think Suddeth has much potential

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well I think Suddeth has much potential

Certainly.

 

[DKSuddeth]

It seems so simple and obvious, J I can't figure out how so many miss this. And leave it to Suddeth to think this is a bone for libs

well, I didn't say this was a bone for the libs, I asked RWA to explain the authors statement without saying it was a bone for the libs.

LOL.............Still love ya Suddeth I give you many kudos for the attempt

A rising tide lifts all ships!!!!!!!

 

[DKSuddeth]

You tell me where my model of what happens is wrong. I don't care what this fool says. I know what history has proved and why it occurs.

its not that what you said is wrong, its not looking at the model the right way. Think of it as a pyramid, if you will. the wealthy who invest are at the top while the non-wealthy who work are on the bottom. What part of that pyramid is the strongest? the wide flat bottom of course. So, just like in the economic model, instead of 'trickling down', the money trickles up. The tax cuts allow the non-wealthy to keep a bit more money, they spend the money, that money goes UP to the eventual business' and its shareholders. THAT profit allows them to create more product, invest/research/develop new product, and hire more people. Those people that are hired are on the bottom and the money they make gets spent, going UP to the top again.

If the bottom has no money to spend, the top sees nothing from it. They pyramid cannot be supported standing on its top. Therefore its really 'trickle up' economics.

 

[freeandfun1]

If the bottom has no money to spend, the top sees nothing from it. They pyramid cannot be supported standing on its top. Therefore its really 'trickle up' economics.

How does it trickle up without first trickling down? It can't.

Maybe cyclical would better explain it.

If a "rich" man is given a tax cut, unless he hoards it all, which is unlikely, he will invest that money into people, machinery, whatever. Even if he hoards it, everything he buys with it will create jobs, etc. Now every dollar he spends moves down the ladder. As you said, since he owns the business, then the people at the bottom buy his products therefore, sending the money back to him. But more and more these days, those same people at the bottom also own stock in his company so that money is going back to them also.

Capitalism works like liberals think socialism does. But of course, it has been proved it does not as socialism does not breed new inventions and ideas as there is no incentive to do so.

 

[DKSuddeth]

How does it trickle up without first trickling down? It can't.

Maybe cyclical would better explain it.

If a "rich" man is given a tax cut, unless he hoards it all, which is unlikely, he will invest that money into people, machinery, whatever. Even if he hoards it, everything he buys with it will create jobs, etc. Now every dollar he spends moves down the ladder. As you said, since he owns the business, then the people at the bottom buy his products therefore, sending the money back to him. But more and more these days, those same people at the bottom also own stock in his company so that money is going back to them also.

Capitalism works like liberals think socialism does. But of course, it has been proved it does not as socialism does not breed new inventions and ideas as there is no incentive to do so.

the bottom portion doesn't see those dollars spent as money given to them. they labor for it, or in other words, they are selling their skills and production in return for compensation. Thats not 'trickling down', it only offers the opportunity for the worker to trade labor for compensation. Its that compensation (a bit more after tax cuts) that allows the worker to become a consumer, spending money on products that he/she and others make with their labor. that money they spend then trickles up.

 

[freeandfun1]

the bottom portion doesn't see those dollars spent as money given to them. they labor for it, or in other words, they are selling their skills and production in return for compensation. Thats not 'trickling down', it only offers the opportunity for the worker to trade labor for compensation. Its that compensation (a bit more after tax cuts) that allows the worker to become a consumer, spending money on products that he/she and others make with their labor. that money they spend then trickles up.

again, how does it trickle up without first trickling down?

There are several layers of "rich". I will use Las Vegas as a good example.

First, you have the guy that owns the Casino (Steve Wynn for example or, even better cuz I like him better, Kirk Kerkorian) he is at one level. Then you have the guy that builds the casino, he is at another, then you have the subcontractors, yet further down the line (so far, all these guys are making well over $150K a year) then you have the sub subs, these guys are making maybe $100K a year, then you have the sub, sub subs, these guys are making less and so on and so forth.

Now, all along this line every one of these guys are employing people at different levels. You have the CFO's, controllers, IT guys, etc. They are making themselves over $250K at the casino level, $150K at the contractor level, $75K at the sub contractor level and so on and so forth. Then, under them, you have their workers, etc.

Can't you see, all along the way the money trickles down. You act as if the guy at the top doesn't do anything, that he/she doesn't work for their money and that is just pure BULLSHIT. Sure, there are some rich trustfund folks and such, but then again, using them as an example would just further butress the position that money trickles down. If you have some rich trustfund person that only buys stuff, well, that stuff has to be bought so that means his money is trickling down. The point of trickling down is that as those that are at the "top" spend their money, they buy items made by others and therefore, the money trickles down. If he ain't buying, there is no need to trade for labour.

Remember in the 80's when the dems passed the luxury tax on Yachts? It ruined the US Yacht manufacturing industry and cost thousands of US jobs.

Why? Cuz the RICH just went and bought their yachts where there were no luxury taxes and since they were rich, they could afford to do that.

Money trickles down and you will never convince me it trickles up. NEVER!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Money trickles down and you will never convince me it trickles up. NEVER!

ok, i'll shut up then.