Supply Side: The Theft That Keeps on Taking?

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California

"Economist Barry Bluestone, who, with Bennett Harrison, published in 1988, one of the first books harshly critical of Reagan's economic policies, recently explained onPBS 'NewsHour' that supply-side economics redistributes wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthy.

"The problem, he said, is that the wealthy only spend about 30 percent of their income, while everyone else spends nearly all of theirs. Consequently, he said,

"'... as we move money away from working families towards very wealthy families, we take more and more consumption out of the economy, means slower and slower growth, means higher and higher and extended unemployment.'"

First of all, how many disagree with Bluestone's allegation the wealthy spend only 30% of their income compared to the majority who spend "nearly all" of theirs.

If this is true, does that pose a special problem for any country with an economy that's 70% dependent on consumption for its survival?

What Trickle-Down Economics Has Done to the US The Rich Get All the Money
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
From December 2013:
"Reporting on the release of the monthly jobs numbers last Friday, we spoke with Northeastern University political economist Barry Bluestone about what he called generally good news: 200,000 people back to work and the unemployment rate down to 7 percent.

"But for those people 'out of the economy,' in Bluestone’s words, or the long-term unemployed, of whom there are consistently about 4 million, things aren’t looking any rosier.

"Inequality for those at the bottom persists, and as he explains, it’s linked to high unemployment.

The day Reagan s labor secretary admitted he was wrong about inequality
 

LOki

The Yaweh of Mischief
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
358
Points
85
Trickle-down economics is not supply-side economics.

Trickle-down economics is Keynesian economics marketed at Republicans.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
128,585
Reaction score
22,018
Points
2,180

"Economist Barry Bluestone, who, with Bennett Harrison, published in 1988, one of the first books harshly critical of Reagan's economic policies, recently explained onPBS 'NewsHour' that supply-side economics redistributes wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthy.

"The problem, he said, is that the wealthy only spend about 30 percent of their income, while everyone else spends nearly all of theirs. Consequently, he said,

"'... as we move money away from working families towards very wealthy families, we take more and more consumption out of the economy, means slower and slower growth, means higher and higher and extended unemployment.'"

First of all, how many disagree with Bluestone's allegation the wealthy spend only 30% of their income compared to the majority who spend "nearly all" of theirs.

If this is true, does that pose a special problem for any country with an economy that's 70% dependent on consumption for its survival?

What Trickle-Down Economics Has Done to the US The Rich Get All the Money
Never heard of the organization that produced your chart, and the source of the data isn't listed, so it has exactly zero credibility. Furthermore, growth comes from savings, not from spending, so your author is nothing but a socialist crank.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Trickle-down economics is Keynesian economics marketed at Republicans

Republicans feel safer when supporting "big government" defense spending at the expense of the "general welfare."

"This graph compares the percentage of each country's population that is living below the poverty line against the percentage of the GDP each country dedicates to public sector social spending. The countries included are all of the members of the OECD.

"France (which spends the largest percentage of its GDP on its safety net), Mexico (which spends the smallest percentage) and the United States are specifically marked. The US spends a low percentage of its GDP on its safety net and has a very high percentage of its population living in poverty."

What Trickle-Down Economics Has Done to the US The Rich Get All the Money
 

LOki

The Yaweh of Mischief
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
358
Points
85
Trickle-down economics is just Keynesian economics for Republicans.


 
Last edited:
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Never heard of the organization that produced your chart, and the source of the data isn't listed, so it has exactly zero credibility. Furthermore, growth comes from savings, not from spending, so your author is nothing but a socialist crank.
"
Footnotes:

Where Are the Jobs

Economist s View Skill-Biased Technological Change and Rising Wage Inequality

Poverty and Safety Net Spending

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Justice/...ing-Wages-Jobs-Built-Middle-Class.pdf?nocdn=1"

What Trickle-Down Economics Has Done to the US The Rich Get All the Money
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,573
Reaction score
2,125
Points
1,100
"

First of all, how many disagree with Bluestone's allegation the wealthy spend only 30% of their income compared to the majority who spend "nearly all" of theirs.
the wealthy don't put their money in the mattress. They put it in the bank where it is loaned out for business education cars boats etc etc. See why we say liberalism is based
in pure ignorance?
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,573
Reaction score
2,125
Points
1,100
Trickle-down economics is not supply-side economics.

Trickle-down economics is Keynesian economics marketed at Republicans.
goof liberal has no idea what she's talking about. Republicans(supply siders) are generally 100% opposed to Keynes( demand sider) tax and spend. If you disagree please say why or admit with your silence that as a liberal you have no idea on earth what you are talking about.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,158
Reaction score
2,710
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
the wealthy don't put their money in the mattress. They put it in the bank where it is loaned out for business education cars boats etc etc
They put more money into tax exempt scams and Ponzi schemes. Conservatives don't really care where the money comes from, do they?
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,573
Reaction score
2,125
Points
1,100
the wealthy don't put their money in the mattress. They put it in the bank where it is loaned out for business education cars boats etc etc
They put more money into tax exempt scams and Ponzi schemes. Conservatives don't really care where the money comes from, do they?
they are tax exempt because liberals, not conservatives, want them to invest there like muni bonds for example. Care to try again? Its very hard with a liberal IQ isn't it?
 

CultureCitizen

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
140
Points
95
the wealthy don't put their money in the mattress. They put it in the bank where it is loaned out for business education cars boats etc etc. See why we say liberalism is based
in pure ignorance?
And then it is up to the bank . The bank may keep it as a reserve, or invest it on a foreign country, or "invest" it in a company which in turn keeps it cycling in the stock instead of producing capital goods.
What good is that for the American economy?
See why conservativism is based on pure ignorance ?
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,573
Reaction score
2,125
Points
1,100
And then it is up to the bank .
yes and a bank is a competitive business that lives and dies based on how well it invests for economic growth and higher standards of living while govt is a soviet monopoly that builds bridges to nowhere, bails out failed human beings who don't pay back a penny, and thereby produces a soviet standard of living.

Are you a soviet fool without the IQ to know it?
 

CultureCitizen

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
140
Points
95
yes and a bank is a competitive business that lives and dies based on how well it invests for economic growth and higher standards of living while govt is a soviet monopoly that builds bridges to nowhere, bails out failed human beings who don't pay back a penny, and thereby produces a soviet standard of living.

Are you a soviet fool without the IQ to know it?
Last time I checked, banks were bailed out in spite of their fiduciary responsability.
Now , even if banks grow ( responsible ones ) , that doesn't mean that that is translated into local investment, as I said, they could borrow to a foreign company , or borrow to a local company which purchases back ( and forth) its own shares in the stock, hence nor the wealth nor the capital investment is actually increased.
 

CultureCitizen

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
140
Points
95
Last time I checked, banks were bailed out.
too stupid banks paid back the money while liberals spend trillions each year bailing out individuals who never pay a penny back!!
Well, how do you know they didn't pay back ? Some defaulted, not everyone.

And again, managing the assets is the core business of a bank, nor debtors nor the government are responsible for such task.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,573
Reaction score
2,125
Points
1,100
purchases back ( and forth) its own shares in the stock,.
dear, if a company buys its own share it does so for a managerial reason such as paying stock options to its employees who then have more money to spend in their community when they exercise the options.

Stick to you ABC's please.
 

CultureCitizen

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
140
Points
95
they could borrow to a foreign company .
yes dear and a foreign bank could loan to an American company!!! So incredibly slow!!
Yes of course, but you miss my point : we are talking about the deposits of rich americans and the fact that by being on the bank it doesn't necesarily translate into an increase in capital investment or wealth creation.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top