Trickle up policy.

[CultureCitizen]

Not all tricke up policy is good, some of it can be frankly very bad .
The purpose of this thread is to support "tricke up policy" as well as gather evidence that tricke up can be as effective as tricke down.

So my first piece of evidence that trickle up is to be prefered to trickle down is this TED talk.



Points of interest of the talk:
Effective tax rates have declined, but this has not translated in higher employment rate.
A rich person can earn hundreds or thousands more than a poor person , but he doesn't spend the as much as all those people put together ( this translates in falling consumption ).
If the median household income had kept a pace with economy it would now be 92,000 and not 50,000. When the middle class thrives , business grow and hire and business get proffits.
Hence taxing the rich to create investments that beneffit all is a fantastic idea.
Rich people do not create jobs, jobs are a consequence of a feedback loop between customers and businesses.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
Rich people do not create jobs

100% stupid and 100% liberal of course. When after 10 million years a rich or soon to be rich person finally invented the farm plow millions of jobs were created. THe guys who sat around hunting and gathering beforehand for 10 million years did not invent the plow or create the job of farming.

It takes a Nazi level of propaganda to make someone believe that the guy who bought the plow created his own job as farmer when he didn't have the job for the previous 10 million years, but got it the instant someone else invented the plow.

Liberalism is pure ignorance on a Nazi scale. Even Hilary apologized for momentarily falling for the Nazi propaganda. And so did Obama.

 

[CultureCitizen]

100% stupid and 100% liberal of course. When after 10 million years a rich or soon to be rich person finally invented the farm plow millions of jobs were created. THe guys who sat around hunting and gathering beforehand for 10 million years did not invent the plow or create the job of farming.

It takes a Nazi level of propaganda to make someone believe that the guy who bought the plow created his own job as farmer when he didn't have the job for the previous 10 million years, but got it the instant someone else invented the plow.

Liberalism is pure ignorance on a Nazi scale. Even Hilary apologized for momentarily falling for the Nazi propaganda. And so did Obama.

Ed,
As allways too dimwit, filling the thread with gibberish unrelated to the OP.
Had every farmer been poor and famishing who would be the customers of this "soon to be rich" inventor? That is the point of the TED talk.
And in order to better educate you , I shal indulge in quoting an economics 101 textbook."Without consumption there would be little need for production or distribution".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
Had every farmer been poor and famishing who would be the customers of this "soon to be rich" inventor?

what on earth ??? they were poor and famished; thats why they were customers of the soon to be rich inventor!!!!!.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

."Without consumption there would be little need for production or distribution".

yes dear we know people naturally need to eat, drink, and breath very desperately; thats why we make heros of those Republican supply siders who make it possible. Do you understand?

 

[CultureCitizen]

yes dear we know people naturally need to eat, drink, and breath very desperately; thats why we make heros of those Republican supply siders who make it possible. Do you understand?

Ed, you seem to fail grasping the basics of the cyclic economic model. Business will expand only if there is a market for the product. If everyone is poor there is no market, so no one will invest.
Credit, yes , they could get credit, but bankers seldom give credit to the poor.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. If everyone is poor there is no market, so no one will invest.

too 100% stupid of course. before the plow few people survived and everyone was poor and lived at subsistence.

did you think they had supermarkets then?? When we talk about supply side economics it is assumed you understand we are talking about supplying stuff people can afford. thats why they supplied a simple wooden plow rather than a John Deere tractor. Now you understand the nature of economic growth.

 

[CultureCitizen]

too 100% stupid of course. before the plow few people survived and everyone was poor and lived at subsistence.

did you think they had supermarkets then?? When we talk about supply side economics it is assumed you understand we are talking about supplying stuff people can afford. thats why they supplied a simple wooden plow rather than a John Deere tractor. Now you understand the nature of economic growth.

You seem to think every penny saved by the rich will automatically create wealth for everyone in the country.
This must be one of the most stupid misconceptions of the right wing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You seem to think every penny saved by the rich will automatically create wealth for everyone in the country.
This must be one of the most stupid misconceptions of the right wing.

you say its stupid but you clean forgot to say why because you're a typical illiterate liberal going on feelings or prejudices only.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You seem to think every penny saved by the rich will automatically create wealth for everyone in the country.

dear, we know where wealth comes from: we got from the stone age to here because Republicans supplied all the inventions or wealth that made it possible. If we want to continue getting wealthier we need to encourage Republican supply sider inventors rather than discourage them. We should give them subsidies rather than failed individuals who we will never invent anything.

1+1=2

 

[CultureCitizen]

Trickle up policy : Microloans

"Globally, 2.5 billion people have no access to formal financial tools because they are either unavailable or are not designed to meet their needs. Poor households need financial tools to help them cushion against risk, build assets to secure their family’s future and manage daily household cash flows. Because of their precarious situation and unreliable income, the poor need financial services even more than the non-poor simply to survive from day to day."

Financial Services Grameen Foundation Connecting the World s Poor to Their Potential
The catch of microloans is that they MUST have relatively low interest rates, else debtors will be caught in a debt trap ( THE site is kind of fuzzy but it seem the range of 10% to 20% is adequate for both parties).

Quick What s the Grameen Bank s Interest Rate Center For Global Development

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trickle up policy : Microloans

"Globally, 2.5 billion people have no access to formal financial tools because they are either unavailable or are not designed to meet their needs. Poor households need financial tools to help them cushion against risk, build assets to secure their family’s future and manage daily household cash flows. Because of their precarious situation and unreliable income, the poor need financial services even more than the non-poor simply to survive from day to day."

Financial Services Grameen Foundation Connecting the World s Poor to Their Potential
The catch of microloans is that they MUST have relatively low interest rates, else debtors will be caught in a debt trap ( THE site is kind of fuzzy but it seem the range of 10% to 20% is adequate for both parties).

Quick What s the Grameen Bank s Interest Rate Center For Global Development

how idiotic and 100% liberal!!! if there was money to be made with micro loans anyone would and could get into that very very simple business and the problem would have been solved 1000 years ago. India might have 200 million businesses. Do you think they forgot about the loan business??? See why we have to be 100% positive that a liberal will be slow?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Have you ever consider that other factors like information asymetry are into play ( e.g. rich people don't necesarily know much about the market of poor people)?
How else would you explain that Grameen Bank is so successfull in Bangladesh ?

Arguably they are much more successfull than any of the big 5 in the US as Grameen hasn't required a bailout.

8 million customers is a lot for a country with 120 million.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Have you ever consider that other factors like information asymetry are into play ( e.g. rich people don't necesarily know much about the market of poor people)?

OMG 10000000% stupid and liberal. You don't have to be rich to loan your neighbor some money and then consider doing it as a business! Its the easiest business and oldest business on earth. Trust me, it was thought of at least 1 billion times in India alone.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the key to economic growth is Republican supply side capitalism which China just proved again by instantly eliminating 40% of the world's poverty with Republican capitalism.


In India, it has been reported that loan officers severely harass borrowers. Suicide has increased due to inability to repay loans. Regardless, the Andhra Pradesh government’s response to the crisis is not proactive. The government passed a law on October 14, 2010 that froze much of the microcredit across the county, similar to banning mortgages after a mortgage crisis. The ordinance is bankrupting private lenders and hurting all of the functioning microfinance programs. The objective of legislation should be to reform microfinance rather than kill it. It is unclear whether the government’s new law will help or hurt the poor. However, its extremity indicates that some other measure would have likely mediated the crisis in a better way

 

[Iceweasel]

Business will expand only if there is a market for the product. If everyone is poor there is no market, so no one will invest.
Credit, yes , they could get credit, but bankers seldom give credit to the poor.

Are you going to loan the poor money? Or someone with some expectation to pay it back with interest? Why are liberals so generous with other people's money?

Businesses CREATE markets. The need may not even be there, in fact, it rarely is. People see something and they WANT it and are willing to fork over their money. Business that does it rright has to hire people, buy materials, ship products, etc. So more people have income to buy more stuff.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Business will expand only if there is a market for the product. If everyone is poor there is no market, so no one will invest.
Credit, yes , they could get credit, but bankers seldom give credit to the poor.

Are you going to loan the poor money? Or someone with some expectation to pay it back with interest? Why are liberals so generous with other people's money?

Businesses CREATE markets. The need may not even be there, in fact, it rarely is. People see something and they WANT it and are willing to fork over their money. Business that does it rright has to hire people, buy materials, ship products, etc. So more people have income to buy more stuff.

Economic growth comes only from new Republican inventions:
10,000 years ago when everyone was subsistence farming with their hands liberals would have handed out welfare from the best farmers to the worst farmers thus discouraging everyone from working, and pushing humanity below the subsistence level needed to support life on this planet.

Republicans would have organized the best and brighest (top 1%) to invent or supply the farm plow so human life could expand 100 fold.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Businesses CREATE markets. The need may not even be there, in fact, it rarely is. People see something and they WANT it and are willing to fork over their money. Business that does it rright has to hire people, buy materials, ship products, etc. So more people have income to buy more stuff.

Nope, sory.
People with no purchasing power do not constitute a market, period. That's a no-brainer ( unless you are Baiamonte).
That's why micro-loans are such a great idea, they give purchasing power to poor people and allow them to rise their capital ( some are so poor that even a pair of shoes constitute capital ).

 

[CultureCitizen]

n India, it has been reported that loan officers severely harass borrowers. Suicide has increased due to inability to repay loans. Regardless, the Andhra Pradesh government’s response to the crisis is not proactive. The government passed a law on October 14, 2010 that froze much of the microcredit across the county, similar to banning mortgages after a mortgage crisis. The ordinance is bankrupting private lenders and hurting all of the functioning microfinance programs. The objective of legislation should be to reform microfinance rather than kill it. It is unclear whether the government’s new law will help or hurt the poor. However, its extremity indicates that some other measure would have likely mediated the crisis in a better way

As allways , no proof, no links Baiamonte. Last I heard those suicides were created by Monsanto's copyrighted seeds and not by microloans per se.

There's quite a controversy around that:

"Gruere et al. discuss the introduction and increase in use of Bt cotton in the state of Madhya Pradesh since 2002, and the observed drop in total suicides among that state's farmers in 2006. They then question whether the impact of the increase in use of Bt cotton on farmers suicide in Madhya Pradesh has been to improve or worsen the situation.[45]

In 2011, a review of the evidence regarding the relationship between Bt cotton and farmers' suicides in India was published in the Journal of Development Studies, also by researchers from IFPRI, which found that "Available data show no evidence of a 'resurgence' of farmer suicides. Moreover, Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India."[50] Matin Qaim finds that Bt cotton is controversial in India, irrespective of the scholarly evidence. Anti-biotech activist groups in India repeat their claim that there is evidence of link between Bt cotton and farmers suicides, a claim that is perpetuated by mass media. This linking of farmers suicide and biotech industry has led to negative opinions in public policy making process
Gruere et al. discuss the introduction and increase in use of Bt cotton in the state of Madhya Pradesh since 2002, and the observed drop in total suicides among that state's farmers in 2006. They then question whether the impact of the increase in use of Bt cotton on farmers suicide in Madhya Pradesh has been to improve or worsen the situation.[45]

In 2011, a review of the evidence regarding the relationship between Bt cotton and farmers' suicides in India was published in the Journal of Development Studies, also by researchers from IFPRI, which found that "Available data show no evidence of a 'resurgence' of farmer suicides. Moreover, Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India."[50] Matin Qaim finds that Bt cotton is controversial in India, irrespective of the scholarly evidence. Anti-biotech activist groups in India repeat their claim that there is evidence of link between Bt cotton and farmers suicides, a claim that is perpetuated by mass media. This linking of farmers suicide and biotech industry has led to negative opinions in public policy making process"

Farmers suicides in India - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Iceweasel]

Businesses CREATE markets. The need may not even be there, in fact, it rarely is. People see something and they WANT it and are willing to fork over their money. Business that does it rright has to hire people, buy materials, ship products, etc. So more people have income to buy more stuff.

Nope, sory.
People with no purchasing power do not constitute a market, period. That's a no-brainer ( unless you are Baiamonte).
That's why micro-loans are such a great idea, they give purchasing power to poor people and allow them to rise their capital ( some are so poor that even a pair of shoes constitute capital ).

Nope sorry, Not everyone is too poor to buy anything. Your theory is deeply flawed and not based on reality. For evidence, I offer...history. Where were all the socialist programs that got this country started and propelled it to the world's powerhouse? Capitalism and the freemarket did that, not loaning money to dirt poor people. Go back to your bong and stupid commie websites.