What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[kaz]

You're right that those are the rules in Germany, you're wrong when you say it's working out for them and they are fine with them.

The rest is a strawman. Free markets made us rich, your view they will not destroy us is just silly.

Huh? Free markets will destroy us? Strawman? Huh?

What do you expect from someone who, in reality, does zilch for a living.

Yes, comrade, I am an evil capitalist business owner who lives on the backs of the workers. One question, if I do nothing for a living, why was mine the only car in the parking lot all day yesterday?

 

[RKMBrown]

Look how horrible Germany is doing.

You think .4% growth is terrific? US growth is higher than that, and it still sucks.
And if you charted it back to 1980 you would find the US economy grew the equivalent of the entire German economy in that time.

So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Huh? Free markets will destroy us? Strawman? Huh?

What do you expect from someone who, in reality, does zilch for a living.

Yes, comrade, I am an evil capitalist business owner who lives on the backs of the workers. One question, if I do nothing for a living, why was mine the only car in the parking lot all day yesterday?

You got everyone fired?

Nudge

 

[RKMBrown]

You're right that those are the rules in Germany, you're wrong when you say it's working out for them and they are fine with them.

The rest is a strawman. Free markets made us rich, your view they will not destroy us is just silly.

Huh? Free markets will destroy us? Strawman? Huh? You are talking from the perspective of the corporate execs who make billions for laying off workers.. I was talking from the perspective of the workers who get raped by their companies for profit. I did not say the corporate execs were happy about not being able to fire their labor force and replace them with engineers who work for rice.

Typo: Stupid spell checker. I did correct it, guess you didn't see it. I think with a little thought you could have figured that out. It is supposed to say:

Free markets made us rich, your view they will no(w) destroy us is just silly

Free markets made us rich, your view they will not destroy us is just silly

Oh... well yeah I agree with you on that point. Long term I'm personally immune to off-shoring and on-shoring. While I've been affected by affirmative action, and the offshoring movement, I have the ability to adapt and have. If I was 30years old again, and not 51 (today), I'd be seriously considering putting the pain down on a few of these offshoring corporations. They are easy targets ATM.

 

[kaz]

Look how horrible Germany is doing.

You think .4% growth is terrific? US growth is higher than that, and it still sucks.
And if you charted it back to 1980 you would find the US economy grew the equivalent of the entire German economy in that time.

So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.

So you'd rather be clinging to a job with a company that has better options hoping they don't go out of business because they can't cut costs like their international competitors with few choices of other jobs for the same reason. Got it.

 

[Indeependent]

Huh? Free markets will destroy us? Strawman? Huh?

What do you expect from someone who, in reality, does zilch for a living.

Yes, comrade, I am an evil capitalist business owner who lives on the backs of the workers. One question, if I do nothing for a living, why was mine the only car in the parking lot all day yesterday?

You are in the business of matching a resource with the client "need".
You fill a super matrix with client supplied information, which obviously includes salary range.
You then use this over-bloated, "get me the cheapest resource you can find" info to contact, either by phone, text, e-mail or some automated system, the next H1-B from India.

<SARCASM>
I'm absolutely sure that when someone needs a mathematician, chemist, physicist, physician, or otherwise highly educated resource, that you are more than capable of conversing with candidates for the position.
</SARCASM>

Your car is in the parking lot because the technology exists to allow such...DUH!

 

[Indeependent]

You think .4% growth is terrific? US growth is higher than that, and it still sucks.
And if you charted it back to 1980 you would find the US economy grew the equivalent of the entire German economy in that time.

So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.

So you'd rather be clinging to a job with a company that has better options hoping they don't go out of business because they can't cut costs like their international competitors with few choices of other jobs for the same reason. Got it.

I know quite a number of people who stay with the same job for years who have invested wisely and will have quite a nice retirement.

 

[Dana7360]

Trickle down theory is centuries old. Monarchies believed that if the upper class--the royal family and all noblemen--had the wealth, the poor would benefit when said nobles spent money on their wares or hired them for work. This failed since heavy taxation by the king on nobles meant heavy taxation on the poor within the nobles jurisdictions. Royalty and nobles could basically take what they wanted if they had an army, or force someone into free labor with servitude agreements (for example--your father needs medicine--a noblemen would give you money to buy it for 10 years of free labor--same deals were made for "renting" land to farm).
Even as republics and democracies were formed, this theory was used because wealthy families were the only people considered fit to govern. Poor people were considered ignorant and unable to educate, or dangerous when educated.
Considering the US government is an upgraded version of British government, the same idea is used here. The poor supposedly will benefit from the rich when the rich spend and hire. We all know that is not so since many rich farm out jobs to foreign nations and buy foreign made merchandise, and fill their stores with foreign made merchandise for the poor to buy, and refuse to pay a decent wage to US employees without raising prices.
When today's politicians speak of trickle down, they really have no idea what they are talking about. It is actually an insult to the common man.

You don't know what you're talking about. "trickle down" is just a leftwing pejorative for "capitalism." Anyone who uses the term hates capitalism. When they object to what the call "trickle down" they are objecting to the normal workings of the market economy.

I'm a 4th year political science student. We actually study this shit.

The poster you're replying to is a liar.

The poster has realized that trickle down supply side economics doesn't work. So he blames it on democrats.

Even though it was reagan who brought trickle down supply side economics to America and the gop has forced it on our nation ever since.

Most democrats follow keynesian economics.

Trickle down supply side economics has been applied to our nation several times by the conservatives. Every time it has destroyed our economy and lead to either a depression or recession. Along with bubble and burst cycles.

All that stopped when FDR applied Keynesian economics. We had over 40 years of prosperity without any bubbles and bursts which lead to depressions.

We have that trickle down supply side economics and it's only harmed our nation. When republicans apply it our nation suffers. When democrats apply Keynesian economics everyone in America benefits.

 

[kaz]

What do you expect from someone who, in reality, does zilch for a living.

Yes, comrade, I am an evil capitalist business owner who lives on the backs of the workers. One question, if I do nothing for a living, why was mine the only car in the parking lot all day yesterday?

You are in the business of matching a resource with the client "need".
You fill a super matrix with client supplied information, which obviously includes salary range.
You then use this over-bloated, "get me the cheapest resource you can find" info to contact, either by phone, text, e-mail or some automated system, the next H1-B from India.

Right there you show you know nothing about business. Business is not about cost, cost is just a variable. The goal is profit. We want the employee who maximizes profit. Ironically, you are the one who thinks workers are tools, they are interchangable, one is the same as another. You are wrong, comrade. Seldom is the cheapest employee the most profitable.

<SARCASM>
I'm absolutely sure that when someone needs a mathematician, chemist, physicist, physician, or otherwise highly educated resource, that you are more than capable of conversing with candidates for the position.
</SARCASM>

Since I double majored in Math and Computer Science and have a Masters in Computer Science & Applications in addition to my MBA, I agree, I can converse with them just fine.

Your car is in the parking lot because the technology exists to allow such...DUH!

 

[kaz]

So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.

So you'd rather be clinging to a job with a company that has better options hoping they don't go out of business because they can't cut costs like their international competitors with few choices of other jobs for the same reason. Got it.

I know quite a number of people who stay with the same job for years who have invested wisely and will have quite a nice retirement.

I like pickles. Dills and Bread and Butter are my favorites.

 

[Dana7360]

More aptly termed market based economics, the principle that investment, and large scale business improvement are the primary method of bringing money into the economy. Unquestioned, the problems arise with uncontrolled investment & expenditures outside the US.

Well we're getting there.
Can we do a little better here?

With excessive taxation and burdensome controls, businesses will not invest in the labor sector, nor employ through research and development. Only free markets will increase productivity, and thus wealth is gained by the employment sector.

Delving into sociological terms, if the reward for doing little much, is the same as the reward for doing little, incentives in development stall. Thus by freeing capital for continued investment, economies grow.

Per Samuelson, as I remembered him.

So when did you take economics? Who ever taught you economic should lose their teaching license.

There is one and only one reason an employer is going to hire more employees.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day and do nothing. The only reason why an employer is going to hire someone is because they have more work to do in a normal work week than their existing employees can do. If that's happening then that business is having more sales. If that's happening then that business is making more money and the last thing it needs is a tax cut.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing no matter how many tax cuts that employer receives.

Tax cuts don't create jobs. Demand does. Demand happens when people have money in their pockets to spend.

All tax cuts do is cause the price of goods and services to increase, it concentrates wealth into a few hands while leaving almost everyone else with poverty wages. it also causes jobs to be taken from America and leaving us with no jobs.

That's your economics 101 lesson for today.

Oh by the way, I did take that economics course. It was required for my degree in accounting. I took more than one economics course in my years learning accounting so I know what I'm talking about.

You, not so much.

 

[Indeependent]

Yes, comrade, I am an evil capitalist business owner who lives on the backs of the workers. One question, if I do nothing for a living, why was mine the only car in the parking lot all day yesterday?

You are in the business of matching a resource with the client "need".
You fill a super matrix with client supplied information, which obviously includes salary range.
You then use this over-bloated, "get me the cheapest resource you can find" info to contact, either by phone, text, e-mail or some automated system, the next H1-B from India.

Right there you show you know nothing about business. Business is not about cost, cost is just a variable. The goal is profit. We want the employee who maximizes profit. Ironically, you are the one who thinks workers are tools, they are interchangable, one is the same as another. You are wrong, comrade. Seldom is the cheapest employee the most profitable.

<SARCASM>
I'm absolutely sure that when someone needs a mathematician, chemist, physicist, physician, or otherwise highly educated resource, that you are more than capable of conversing with candidates for the position.
</SARCASM>

Since I double majored in Math and Computer Science and have a Masters in Computer Science & Applications in addition to my MBA, I agree, I can converse with them just fine.

Your car is in the parking lot because the technology exists to allow such...DUH!

Most businesses today fake their profits by cutting costs, not by coming up with some great product.

Big ******* deal, I also majored in the same shit and I can easily tell you that 99% of the H1-Bs coming across the ocean are producing failed projects left and right.
What's even worse is that you are obviously specifically "searching" for these inept Indians.
I've interviewed dozens of these clowns with Masters Degrees and they couldn't think their way out of a bathroom stall.
But I guess that's why every vendor wants to couple with Apple's engineers to actually get something done.

 

[RKMBrown]

You think .4% growth is terrific? US growth is higher than that, and it still sucks.
And if you charted it back to 1980 you would find the US economy grew the equivalent of the entire German economy in that time.

So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.

So you'd rather be clinging to a job with a company that has better options hoping they don't go out of business because they can't cut costs like their international competitors with few choices of other jobs for the same reason. Got it.

Or those companies could keep their employees and build more products. The incorrect assumption that some MBAs like you make is that there is a limited number of customers with a limited amount of wealth to spend. They assume that if they fire productive people said firings will result in better profit margin. They see people as a resource not as a productive human. Most MBAs don't understand that a great Engineer can generate a hundred times his income rate in profit, where a shitty Engineer can generate a hundred times his income rate in costs. The concept of small great teams building products to be sold and make profit goes over the head of most MBAs like you. Instead you see head count as a number in a spreadsheet. No offense but that's what it looks like from my eyes.

Back at a Comdex in 95, I think it was, I talked to Bill, Woz, and a couple other engineers on this topic, off camera. We were chatting about this AI dog thing Bill was putting into windows, and some new game console they were starting to design and play around with. Somehow we got to the quantity over quality issue. They both agreed that the small tight team concept was better than the spreadsheet business model. Steve's retort was to shrug and say yeah good luck getting the wankers to give a crap about skill & innovation over profit. Bill's view was to using the small team model on new products and then manage revisions with large teams of 2nd tier folks. Steve winks at me and says yeah if you kept the teams smaller all the way through you wouldn't need big ass services teams for your bug riddled product in the field. Bill was like yeah but if it was bug free they wouldn't have to buy the next release would they.

 

[The Rabbi]

Look how horrible Germany is doing.

You think .4% growth is terrific? US growth is higher than that, and it still sucks.
And if you charted it back to 1980 you would find the US economy grew the equivalent of the entire German economy in that time.

So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.

No, idiot. I'd rather be living in an economy of increasing efficiency where low paying jobs are exported and higher paying jobs in sales, service and marketing and plentiful. What about this do you not understand?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well we're getting there.
Can we do a little better here?

With excessive taxation and burdensome controls, businesses will not invest in the labor sector, nor employ through research and development. Only free markets will increase productivity, and thus wealth is gained by the employment sector.

Delving into sociological terms, if the reward for doing little much, is the same as the reward for doing little, incentives in development stall. Thus by freeing capital for continued investment, economies grow.

Per Samuelson, as I remembered him.

So when did you take economics? Who ever taught you economic should lose their teaching license.

There is one and only one reason an employer is going to hire more employees.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day and do nothing. The only reason why an employer is going to hire someone is because they have more work to do in a normal work week than their existing employees can do. If that's happening then that business is having more sales. If that's happening then that business is making more money and the last thing it needs is a tax cut.

No employer is going to hire someone to just stand around all day long doing nothing no matter how many tax cuts that employer receives.

Tax cuts don't create jobs. Demand does. Demand happens when people have money in their pockets to spend.

All tax cuts do is cause the price of goods and services to increase, it concentrates wealth into a few hands while leaving almost everyone else with poverty wages. it also causes jobs to be taken from America and leaving us with no jobs.

That's your economics 101 lesson for today.

Oh by the way, I did take that economics course. It was required for my degree in accounting. I took more than one economics course in my years learning accounting so I know what I'm talking about.

You, not so much.

It is amazing. Leftist morons who know zilch about economics come on here, accuse others of not knowing anything, and then demonstrate their own ignorance.
How many people were hired to design, build and market the iPad long before the first one was sold? Consumer spending does not drive the economy. That's been proven over and over. Business investment drives the economy and no business is going to invest knowing their returns will be diminished by high tax and regulatory costs.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.

So you'd rather be clinging to a job with a company that has better options hoping they don't go out of business because they can't cut costs like their international competitors with few choices of other jobs for the same reason. Got it.

Or those companies could keep their employees and build more products. The incorrect assumption that some MBAs like you make is that there is a limited number of customers with a limited amount of wealth to spend. They assume that if they fire productive people said firings will result in better profit margin. They see people as a resource not as a productive human. Most MBAs don't understand that a great Engineer can generate a hundred times his income rate in profit, where a shitty Engineer can generate a hundred times his income rate in costs. The concept of small great teams building products to be sold and make profit goes over the head of most MBAs like you. Instead you see head count as a number in a spreadsheet. No offense but that's what it looks like from my eyes.

Back at a Comdex in 94, I think it was, I talked to Bill, Steve, and a couple other engineers on this topic, off camera. We were chatting about this AI dog thing Bill was putting into windows, and some new game console they were building. Somehow we got to the quantity over quality issue. They both agreed that the small tight team concept was better than the spreadsheet business model. Steve's retort was to shrug and say yeah good luck getting the wankers to give a crap about skill & innovation over profit. Bill's view was to using the small team model on new products and then manage revisions with large teams of 2nd tier folks. Steve winks at me and says yeah if you kept the teams smaller all the way through you wouldn't need big ass services teams for your bug riddled product in the field. Bill was like yeah but if it was bug free they wouldn't have to buy the next release would they.

You seem not to understand any of what he's saying. When called on it, you deflect to some irrelevant topic. As you did here.
Companies overstaffed with unproductive employees but kept in business by government subsidies will eventually go out of business anyway as they fall further and further behind the competition. That was Kaz's point. They simply stagnate behind their protective walls.

 

[Dana7360]

Damn

11 Pages into this thread and our conservatives have not yet posted "I never got a job from a poor person" justification

What a bunch of slackers

Did you ever get a Job from a poor person ? Did it involve the use of Knee Pads ? I didn't say were you ever given a .... Job

Small business provides something like 80% of the jobs in America.

Small business isn't owned by the 1%. It's owned mostly by middle and upper middle income people. Not the rich.

The rich provide much fewer jobs than the middle class.

So bringing the "poor" into this is ridiculous and extreme. Insinuating that the rich provide most of the jobs in America is a lie.

No rich person ever gave me a job. A middle and upper middle class income person has always been the people I've worked for.

 

[The Rabbi]

Damn

11 Pages into this thread and our conservatives have not yet posted "I never got a job from a poor person" justification

What a bunch of slackers

Did you ever get a Job from a poor person ? Did it involve the use of Knee Pads ? I didn't say were you ever given a .... Job

Small business provides something like 80% of the jobs in America.

Small business isn't owned by the 1%. It's owned mostly by middle and upper middle income people. Not the rich.

The rich provide much fewer jobs than the middle class.

So bringing the "poor" into this is ridiculous and extreme. Insinuating that the rich provide most of the jobs in America is a lie.

No rich person ever gave me a job. A middle and upper middle class income person has always been the people I've worked for.

Anyone with income over 200,000 is "rich" under Obama. Most successful small business owners meet that threshold.
You're impressing everyone here with your stupidity and ignorance.

 

[Indeependent]

Did you ever get a Job from a poor person ? Did it involve the use of Knee Pads ? I didn't say were you ever given a .... Job

Small business provides something like 80% of the jobs in America.

Small business isn't owned by the 1%. It's owned mostly by middle and upper middle income people. Not the rich.

The rich provide much fewer jobs than the middle class.

So bringing the "poor" into this is ridiculous and extreme. Insinuating that the rich provide most of the jobs in America is a lie.

No rich person ever gave me a job. A middle and upper middle class income person has always been the people I've worked for.

Anyone with income over 200,000 is "rich" under Obama. Most successful small business owners meet that threshold.
You're impressing everyone here with your stupidity and ignorance.

You are purposely conflating two concepts.
First of all, anyone making 50K is rich according to Democrats.
Second, most of the couples people I know make over 200K and are more likely to be attorneys and accountants with perhaps 1 or two employees, often enough the spouse.
Physicians who make 200K+ are in a group or work for a clinic or hospital and thus do not employ anyone themselves.

Try inserting a fact here and there.

 

[Dana7360]

"Trickle down economics" is a disparaging description of economic policies designed to enhance the overall level of prosperity in the country (e.g., a tax cut - which, of mathmatical necessity, would go mainly to high-earners). According to critics, the only way "the common man" would benefit from such a measure would be when The Rich spend their additional take-home income on services and locally-manufactured goods, vacation homes and whatnot, thereby creating employment for The Common Man.

Progressives, on the other hand, favor policies whereby The Common Man is empowered to demand more from The Rich and from Corporate America - increases in the Minimum Wage, increased unionization, greater public and quasi-public employment.

Allow me to speak for all Progressives (which is arrogant, but since you did...) and edit your remarks:

The Common Man has the right to end the exploitation of his/her labor by demanding an increase in the Minimum Wage, the right to organize and join with others to earn fair wages and benefits, and to strike for the same while petitioning the support of the public and his and her's political representatives.

Raise minimum wage to what? 100 bucks an hour 1000 bucks an hour? Why limit your goals to what amounts to petty change?

I have a question. Why are you working minimum wage? Around here we don't even pay high school kids minimum wage. Minimum wage means you are not worth more than the absolute minimum. It means you are taking the least valuable job around. It usually means that either something is wrong with you, that or you've never worked before and have to prove you are worth more than the minimum, which normally should only take a day or two. Of course if you raise minimum wage those useless people will get fired.

I have an idea, why not raise minimum wage to the same rates as ceos and executives receive?

According to conservatives the ceo isn't being paid too much money even though they're receiving hundreds of times more in pay than the workers get.

When the workers have money in their pockets they spend it. Which in turn creates demand which in turn drives the economy. The rich don't spend their money. They send it off to off shore accounts to avoid taxation. So we get to pay the taxes the rich don't pay. Or we borrow the money for future generations to pay off. With interest.

Business can supply all the goods and services they want. It's worthless if there's no one who can afford to buy their products.

Higher minimum wage causes higher standard of living and higher tax revenues to pay for needed programs and expenses of our nation. It also prevents us from having to give those workers welfare because their employer doesn't pay them enough to live on.

My state has the highest state minimum wage in the nation. We have a law here that requires that we have the highest state minimum wage in the nation. It's over 9 dollars an hour now. We have one of the highest standards of living in the nation and we have a lower unemployment rate than the national average. We also receive less federal dollars than we pay. The exact opposite of the red conservative states.

You people whine about welfare and assistance to people yet you don't want them to be able to make a living by their labor. You want to keep giving big business our tax dollars by way of food stamps and other public programs.

If the employer doesn't pay enough for people to live on then don't whine about welfare programs. Either you advocate for wages that sustain people or you stop whining about welfare. You can't have it both ways.

I for one, am sick and tired of my hard earned tax dollars being given to greedy rich people to make them even more richer.