Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[danielpalos]

[
And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of Conservative economics...the faith that the private sector will increase its spending to fill the void created by a decline in government spending. Never has happened, doesn't happen now, and never will happen. If you remove $1T of government spending from the economy, it has to be replaced by something. "Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.

Economics are not conservative not liberal. You highlight the the flaw in ignorant partisanship. You substitute partisan goals for fact.

As for removing a trillion of government spending, you ignorantly have fallen into the one sided transaction trap. Before government can spend a trillion, it must first remove several trillion from the economy, significantly lowering economic activity in the far more efficient private sector. Since government does not and in fact cannot create wealth, it must by necessity remove capital from the market prior to spending anything.

How does that work with a printing press that creates fiat money, almost as if by majick?

 

[danielpalos]

"Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.

1) if it doesn't happen why do we have 100 million super computer smart phones at $140/month?

2) if it doesn't happen you want to replace it with trickle down welfare from the federal govt?

"Trickle down" is a foolish term used by those who fail to grasp basic economics. It was a disparaging epithet applied to Arthur Laffers ideas. There is not, nor has there ever been anything such as "trickle down economics." The moment a person uses the term you can be assured that they have no grasp of basic economics and are pursuing a partisan agenda.

Yes, there is. It is a right wing term and euphemism for, "bailout the wealthiest and then, let it trickle down."

 

[danielpalos]

wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.

You think that prices in a market should be variable? Are you suggesting that the price paid at the register be "means tested" so that "the rich" pay more for a can of soup than "the poor" (or politically favored.)

How about, "being able to rent or lease" a girlfriend, at a Dollar Store?

Fuck off pot head

No dollar stores in your area; dopeless wonder?

 

[Uncensored2008]

???conservatives want capitalism and freedom. Friedman wrote a book with that name.
liberals spied for stalin and always want a bigger state and more socialism.

"Conservative" carries a great deal of cultural baggage. Many conservative do indeed support market capitalism, yet some are only concerned with stopping abortion or other social issues.

Friedman wrote many books, "Price Theory" was brilliant. But then Friedman was more Libertarian than Conservative.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

well yes and no. Steve Jobs invents the Iphone and soon enough they trickle down and 100 million Americans have them. Seems accurate to me. And certainly useful when directly compared to the trickle down welfare that liberals want.

First off, that isn't what is meant by "trickle down," secondly I believe you are poorly coopting a thesis I have stated many times here and to my classes regarding supply side. Are you familiar with Says law?

Essentially the iPhone proves Says law in practical terms. In 2003 there was no demand for smart phones that could run applications. The ignorant trolls that claim demand is that basis of economic advance would then be forced to state the iPhone does not exist, since there was no demand to drive it

How ever, supply creates demand is a fact, an economic law. Jobs and his group CREATED the demand for smart phones by stealing the technology from Hewlett Packard and demonstrating through marketing to the public WHY they wanted and even needed the device. Jobs CREATED the demand by providing a supply of product and showing why they were needed.

A classic illustration of supply side economics in action. Has nothing to do with anything "trickling down," though increased activity reverberates throughout the market and increases wealth at every strata.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
It could be possible, with ID checkout for every transaction. Who wants to do that? the right wing.

Force labor camps could be possible too, in fact they are high on the democrats agenda.

But as with variable pricing of goods, it is immoral and destructive to a society.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, there is. It is a right wing term and euphemism for, "bailout the wealthiest and then, let it trickle down."

False, you ignorant fool. It is an epithet created by the democrats to disparage Reagan. Only leftist morons like you use the term.

{
"Trickle-down economics", also referred to as "trickle-down theory", is a term associated with laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics. The term is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged, while being framed as good for the average citizen.

In recent history, the phrase has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but then became critical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[1][2] Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[3]}

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

No dollar stores in your area; dopeless wonder?

Don't you have a bridge to sit under, troll?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, there is. It is a right wing term and euphemism for, "bailout the wealthiest and then, let it trickle down."

False, you ignorant fool. It is an epithet created by the democrats to disparage Reagan. Only leftist morons like you use the term.

{
"Trickle-down economics", also referred to as "trickle-down theory", is a term associated with laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics. The term is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged, while being framed as good for the average citizen.

In recent history, the phrase has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but then became critical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[1][2] Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[3]}

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia

Like I said; bailout the wealthiest, and then let it trickle down. Only the wealthiest are, too big to not bailout.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, there is. It is a right wing term and euphemism for, "bailout the wealthiest and then, let it trickle down."

False, you ignorant fool. It is an epithet created by the democrats to disparage Reagan. Only leftist morons like you use the term.

{
"Trickle-down economics", also referred to as "trickle-down theory", is a term associated with laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics. The term is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged, while being framed as good for the average citizen.

In recent history, the phrase has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but then became critical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[1][2] Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[3]}

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia

Like I said; bailout the wealthiest, and then let it trickle down. Only the wealthiest are, too big to not bailout.

The bailouts for the wealthy were repaid at a profit.....the bailouts for the rest lost money.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[

well yes and no. Steve Jobs invents the Iphone and soon enough they trickle down and 100 million Americans have them. Seems accurate to me. And certainly useful when directly compared to the trickle down welfare that liberals want.

First off, that isn't what is meant by "trickle down," secondly I believe you are poorly coopting a thesis I have stated many times here and to my classes regarding supply side. Are you familiar with Says law?

Essentially the iPhone proves Says law in practical terms. In 2003 there was no demand for smart phones that could run applications. The ignorant trolls that claim demand is that basis of economic advance would then be forced to state the iPhone does not exist, since there was no demand to drive it

How ever, supply creates demand is a fact, an economic law. Jobs and his group CREATED the demand for smart phones by stealing the technology from Hewlett Packard and demonstrating through marketing to the public WHY they wanted and even needed the device. Jobs CREATED the demand by providing a supply of product and showing why they were needed.

A classic illustration of supply side economics in action. Has nothing to do with anything "trickling down," though increased activity reverberates throughout the market and increases wealth at every strata.

Well you're close or hovering around the truth. You start out by talking about trickle down economics and never defined what it was when it was our subject let alone address my point about trickle down economics as seen by Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives

Also your explanation of supply side economics is only close to the truth. Supply side economics is not based on companies dreaming up Ruben Goldberg contraptions and supplying them to an eager Consumer most companies who do that you would learn in MBA school go bankrupt most new products come from carefully learning from your potential customers what they want or need and then building a product around that. But that subject is called marketing not supply side economics well while our subject was trickle down economics which you ignored

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Well you're close or hovering around the truth. You start out by talking about trickle down economics and never defined what it was when it was our subject let alone address my point about trickle down economics as seen by Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives

Also your explanation of supply side economics is only close to the truth. Supply side economics is not based on companies dreaming up Ruben Goldberg contraptions and supplying them to an eager Consumer most companies who do that you would learn in MBA school go bankrupt most new products come from carefully learning from your potential customers what they want or need and then building a product around that. But that subject is called marketing not supply side economics well while our subject was trickle down economics which you ignored

LOL; I have an MBA, concentration in economics. I also have Ph,D. in supply chain management. I also teach economics. I have also read the General Theory, Man, Economy and State, and most other major texts on the subject.

Now we have all been treated to your ignorance on economics in the past. I generally say little to you since your ultimate goal is capitalism.

Marketing was the expertise of Apple. They are less of a tech company than they are a marketing company. As I pointed out, they stole the tech from Hewlett Packard, which had their iPaq smart phone on the market going back to 2002, ages before the iPhone - which even went so far as to steal their name. The take away of the story is the confirmation of Says law, supply creates it's own demand. Demand does not drive growth. The amount of demand for water in the Gobi desert is extremely high, yet it does not result in a supply of water for the average consumer.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now we have all been treated to your ignorance on economics in the past.

of course if true you would have one good example to show the world and would not be pretending. Why be a liar??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

LOL; I have an MBA, concentration in economics..

I have an MBA, concentration in marketing. It was all cases about where new products in the real world come from, Hint: not from idle dreams,speculation, and bold guesses about what people will buy, but rather from market research and market testing from concept to initial market test. It has nothing to do with economics theory or supply chain management theory.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

supply creates it's own demand.

depends if the supply meets the customers needs. 95% of the time it does not and new products fail

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Demand does not drive growth. .

I agree. If I disagreed I will pay you $10,000. Bet??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Marketing was the expertise of Apple.

Steve Jobs had no expertise in marketing at all. He was drop out, simply an eccentric nutcase with no concept of what he was doing at all. For example, his super ego led him to believe that he should control every aspect of the user experience right down to colors and screw head appearance on unseen bottom of machine. He became a billionaire thinking his taste and control was responsible. Then he said, screw it lets do a cell phone and partner with AT&T so they can control the user experience on our phones. AT&T was 1000 times worse than IBM his first enemy. They were a huge utility oligopoly with crappy unreliable service and support[10000% anti Apple's concept of itself] but that was ok with the new Steve Jobs.

 

[downpour]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

On top of tax breaks for the wealthy, now Trump wants to cut food stamps. Things just keep getting worse and worse with that dickwad.

 

[downpour]

Marketing was the expertise of Apple.

Steve Jobs had no expertise in marketing at all. He was drop out, simply an eccentric nutcase with no concept of what he was doing at all. For example, his super ego led him to believe that he should control every aspect of the user experience right down to colors and screw head appearance on unseen bottom of machine. He became a billionaire thinking his taste and control was responsible. Then he said, screw it lets do a cell phone and partner with AT&T so they can control the user experience on our phones. AT&T was 1000 times worse than IBM his first enemy. They were a huge utility oligopoly with crappy unreliable service and support[10000% anti Apple's concept of itself] but that was ok with the new Steve Jobs.

Why are you even bring up Apple. If they hadn't borrowed something over 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates, they wouldn't even exist. And the only reason Bill Gates did that was to stave off any possible breakup of Microsoft like what happened with Standard Oil.

 

[Uncensored2008]

On top of tax breaks for the wealthy, now Trump wants to cut food stamps. Things just keep getting worse and worse with that dickwad.

Another leftist fascist who doesn't grasp the concept of "baseline budgeting."

Tell me comrade Brown Shirt, are you stating that the amount of money spent on food stamps (SNAP) for 2018 will be LESS than what was appropriated for 2017?