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.

Second tricle up policy : Infrastructure investment.
This one is tricky : not all infrastructure is created equal.
There can be extremely bad infrastructure investments : a highway or high speed train to a town in the middle of nowhere, Rebuilding infrastructure which already works correctly, creating public universities with carreers which have no demand.

Public investment is tricky, done correctly it can achive wonders, done badly it can be a disaster.

 

[The Rabbi]

As does payday lending.
What was your point again?

As does payday leanding do exactly what ?
Improve weath distribution ... not certainly not!
Increase economy output in a better way than a series of fair loans with a 95% rate of repayment. I don't think so . It might give a temporary boost to the economy, but it will not have a long lasting effect.

Does it prevent people from losing their cars, not paying their rent, etc etc? Yes.
Payday lending boost the economy. That's not to add the employees on their payroll and the rent they pay to landlords. Plus the business taxes they pay.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Second tricle up policy : Infrastructure investment.
This one is tricky : not all infrastructure is created equal.
There can be extremely bad infrastructure investments : a highway or high speed train to a town in the middle of nowhere, Rebuilding infrastructure which already works correctly, creating public universities with carreers which have no demand.

Public investment is tricky, done correctly it can achive wonders, done badly it can be a disaster.

Please detail which "infrastructure investments" (the gov't does not invest money. The gov't spends money) will meet the criteria you set.

 

[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.

Second tricle up policy : Infrastructure investment.
This one is tricky : not all infrastructure is created equal.
There can be extremely bad infrastructure investments : a highway or high speed train to a town in the middle of nowhere, Rebuilding infrastructure which already works correctly, creating public universities with carreers which have no demand.

Public investment is tricky, done correctly it can achive wonders, done badly it can be a disaster.

Please detail which "infrastructure investments" (the gov't does not invest money. The gov't spends money) will meet the criteria you set.

Just take the counter part :
It can create a highway linking to cities which have high yield trade.
It can create a public university with careers which have a high demand in the market, as well as in basic education.
It can invest in research. Such research started the internet and gps technology.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Second tricle up policy : Infrastructure investment.
This one is tricky : not all infrastructure is created equal.
There can be extremely bad infrastructure investments : a highway or high speed train to a town in the middle of nowhere, Rebuilding infrastructure which already works correctly, creating public universities with carreers which have no demand.

Public investment is tricky, done correctly it can achive wonders, done badly it can be a disaster.

Please detail which "infrastructure investments" (the gov't does not invest money. The gov't spends money) will meet the criteria you set.

Just take the counter part :
It can create a highway linking to cities which have high yield trade.
It can create a public university with careers which have a high demand in the market, as well as in basic education.
It can invest in research. Such research started the internet and gps technology.

What highways would you like to see built?
What careers have high demand that univeristies are not educating for
Research is not infrastructure.
You fail. You are channeling Matthew. Hell you're probably his sock. And a smelly one at that.

 

[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.

Second tricle up policy : Infrastructure investment.
This one is tricky : not all infrastructure is created equal.
There can be extremely bad infrastructure investments : a highway or high speed train to a town in the middle of nowhere, Rebuilding infrastructure which already works correctly, creating public universities with carreers which have no demand.

Public investment is tricky, done correctly it can achive wonders, done badly it can be a disaster.

Please detail which "infrastructure investments" (the gov't does not invest money. The gov't spends money) will meet the criteria you set.

Just take the counter part :
It can create a highway linking to cities which have high yield trade.
It can create a public university with careers which have a high demand in the market, as well as in basic education.
It can invest in research. Such research started the internet and gps technology.

What highways would you like to see built?
What careers have high demand that univeristies are not educating for
Research is not infrastructure.
You fail. You are channeling Matthew. Hell you're probably his sock. And a smelly one at that.

Ok dude,
Something you should be aware about me. I tend to discuss topics on a "global" level not only on a US level.
Now highways in the US. Not one I can think of the US is already pretty well connected by highways.
Careers with high demand in public universities : STEM related careers, healthcare profesionals.
Research by itself not, but it requires building and equiping the research centers... call it what you like , it is still an investment.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Second tricle up policy : Infrastructure investment.
This one is tricky : not all infrastructure is created equal.
There can be extremely bad infrastructure investments : a highway or high speed train to a town in the middle of nowhere, Rebuilding infrastructure which already works correctly, creating public universities with carreers which have no demand.

Public investment is tricky, done correctly it can achive wonders, done badly it can be a disaster.

Please detail which "infrastructure investments" (the gov't does not invest money. The gov't spends money) will meet the criteria you set.

Just take the counter part :
It can create a highway linking to cities which have high yield trade.
It can create a public university with careers which have a high demand in the market, as well as in basic education.
It can invest in research. Such research started the internet and gps technology.

What highways would you like to see built?
What careers have high demand that univeristies are not educating for
Research is not infrastructure.
You fail. You are channeling Matthew. Hell you're probably his sock. And a smelly one at that.

Ok dude,
Something you should be aware about me. I tend to discuss topics on a "global" level not only on a US level.
Now highways in the US. Not one I can think of the US is already pretty well connected by highways.
Careers with high demand in public universities : STEM related careers, healthcare profesionals.
Research by itself not, but it requires building and equiping the research centers... call it what you like , it is still an investment.

Gee, when called on for specifics you clutch. You admit the highway system is mature, so nothign to do there. Careers? You default to generalities. Building and equipping research centers? Do you think that isnt happening now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Because it is a market failure. It is the kind of problem that the market can't solve correctly.

how stupid can one person be . If capitalism instantly eliminated 40% of the worlds poverty in China you can say it is not a failure but rather the world's greatest success.
Can you understand?

you have been brainwashed to look for treasonous failure when success is 100% obvious in America with millions standing in line to buy iphones. India and Bangledesh have always had millions of street vendors who get one day loans to stock their carts with fruit or whatever. The concept of tiny loans is as old as time.
Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Because it is a market failure.

so lib Nazis decide when the market has failed and the govt then goes into the business? Dear, they tried that in Red China and 60 million slowly starved to death as the lib Nazis corrected market failures, then they switched to capitalism and everyone is getting rich.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Effective tax rates have declined,

stupid stupid liberal Nazi lie!! our govt spend $8 trillion a year or 50% of GDP or $70k per family. Govt spending has never been so high and never have so many said we are on the wrong track and never has income declined so much for so long!

 

[CultureCitizen]

Gee, when called on for specifics you clutch. You admit the highway system is mature, so nothign to do there. Careers? You default to generalities. Building and equipping research centers? Do you think that isnt happening now?

Roads ,yea , the US. Not all countries are in the same situation.
What were you expecting ? A list of carreers? STEM and healthcare is good enough for me.
Research : it doesn't matter only if it is happening or not ( hell , I am sure even third countries have basic research), but the degree to which it is happening. Now that China has become the top-dog in economic terms research should be the #1 priority way above QE.
Other public investment I consider important would be water conservation and storage ( particularly for the south west which is going through a drought) , as well as any investment in generating cheap energy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Because it is a market failure. It is the kind of problem that the market can't solve correctly.

how stupid can one person be . If capitalism instantly eliminated 40% of the worlds poverty in China you can say it is not a failure but rather the world's greatest success.
Can you understand?

you have been brainwashed to look for treasonous failure when success is 100% obvious in America with millions standing in line to buy iphones. India and Bangledesh have always had millions of street vendors who get one day loans to stock their carts with fruit or whatever. The concept of tiny loans is as old as time.
Do you understand?

Baiamonte,
could you pleas decrease the amount of stupidity you spew in one single post ?
China is a mixed economy and not 100% capitalist. Hell, I think they don't have the least respect for copyright right there. What happened in China was a mixture of planning and free market.
And I was not talking about China, but about micro loans. So next time quote the whole post.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

research should be the #1 priority way above QE.
.

total illiteracy of course. 1) We don't need liberal Nazis dictating how much we should have to save for them to spend on research in promising areas they like and 2) QE is a totally unrelated issue. QE was designed to maintain the banking system and economy with money that gets paid back.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What happened in China was a mixture of planning and free market.

100% stupid!! What happened in China was a conscious decision to greatly diminish liberal planning and substitute the free market. Here are the 2 best books from which you can begin your education!!


"Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"

"How China Became Capitalist"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And I was not talking about China, but about micro loans.

dear, almost every human being on earth has made micro loans to someone so we don't need lib Nazis to tell us its a good new idea. Think before you post!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

as well as any investment in generating cheap energy.

exactly!! we need libsoviet govt deciding where to invest. Here are the lossess so far!!

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy=

 

[CultureCitizen]

as well as any investment in generating cheap energy.

exactly!! we need libsoviet govt deciding where to invest. Here are the lossess so far!!

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy=

Wow Baiamonte, first time I see some reference for one of your posts. Congrats!!

That's quite a sample of resource squandering.
Nevertheless that's not my idea of public investment but rather the creation of government owned (or co-owned) company, not disbursing loans to startups. From your list , the most promising technology was Stirling Energy systems. I do regret it broke in spite of the 7 million loan.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, not disbursing loans to startups..

dear, Barry loaned our money to every one of those companies and of course got soviet results. A liberal is too stupid to understand or to learn.

 

[CultureCitizen]

dear, Barry loaned our money to every one of those companies and of course got soviet results. A liberal is too stupid to understand or to learn.

Ah yes, but government co-owned companies tend to give very different results. In China they are the shizzle.

The visible hand The Economist

What Capitalists Should Know About State-Owned Enterprises - Forbes

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ah yes, but government co-owned companies tend to give very different results. In China they are the shizzle.

it makes no difference liberal govt monopolist bureaucrats screw it up either way. The USSR and Red China tried every scheme under the sun for 100 years. Like I said liberals are too stupid to learn. Do you see now?