Prove to me that "trickle down" or "rising tide lifts all boats" are wrong?

[Oddball]

[
What do you mean “marvelously vague”? I literally just gave two examples of the type of impact I thought it would have. Less owners more renters/employees. Do you not see this happening?

And I agree with your concerns about the Fed but that’s a different subject.

Yes, finally gave examples, after the four times you nagged me about it and supplied none.


Nonetheless, your real estate scenario can't happen in the absence of a huge central bank printing up bazillions of dollars for the banksters to get their hands on first (i,e, the Fed)....But since the creation of wealth is in fact infinite, the likelihood your scenario occurring as a permanent end is next to zero.

Also, if you look at nations where there is the least economic mobility and very large wealth gaps, you will note that it is in places with the most stringent and oppressing economic central control and immense welfare states...This is what's strangling the middle class here, not "unchecked capitalism" or "trickle down".

P.S. The Fed is most definitely relevant here and not an entirely different subject.

 

[healthmyths]

Yes I realize that wealth is not a static commodity.... economics at this scale is an extremely complicated system, which is why I made the assumptions that the 1% be considered a single entity and our wealth as currency and a fixed amount. Yes I realize there are several dynamic factors but I’m trying to talk about core principles which is much easier to do when you simply and generalize...

So if we consider wealth as a the value of ones assets including the % of currency they own, then we can examine how it flows and effects our society and economy.

Let expand it to the top 10%.... if the top 10% owns a large portion of our nations wealth and that % keeps growing, are you going to tell me you don’t think that has an impact on the rest of of the people, particularly the poor and middle class?

As long as wealth creation isn't static -which it isn't- then what's the problem?....You keep claiming that there's an "impact", yet leave it at that extremely vague claim.

If the pool of wealth is constantly expanding (which it is), to the point that everyone with an ounce of get-up-and-go can get some, who gives a rats ass if some are accumulating more than others?

I’ve actually been asking you if you believe there is an impact and you’ve avoided answering 5 times now.

But now that you bring it up, yes I believe there is an impact from wealth inequality. let’s look at an extreme example that will emphasis my point. Let’s say the % of wealth owned by the top earners continues to grow and it gets to a point where they own 90% of our nations wealth. What does that do for the rest of us?

The largest impact I see comes in real estate and business ownership. When a few own and accumulate the wealth while he middle class and poor stay stagnant then the rich buy up the properties and business. More of the lower guys become renters and employees. It gets harder for the “little guy” to compete with the big businesses and it gets harder for them to be able to afford to own a house. The few control our habitat and commerce and we need up in a corporate socialism of sorts. If you dont like big government running your life then perhaps you should put big business on your radar as well because there are not many differences.

True that currency isn’t static but new Money is created by borrowing and the majority of that is done by the wealthy. Cost of living also isnt static, it is a rising figure like inflation. Like I said, it’s a complicated system but if you can simplify it down to the core and look at it then maybe we can identify some of the cause and effects of wealth inequality.

I’m not calling for socialism or some massive redistribution, I’m just trying to have an honest examination of economic cause and effects in a system like we have. I’m far from having all this figured out

NOT one link to prove your comments.
Therefore just plain SUPPOSITION on your part.
Provide links to support your points please.

But contrary to your point... Please refute these facts.
Explain to me how come the GDP has grown from 1929 of $1.109 Trillion in inflation adjusted to $18.051 Trillion in 2017 inflation adjusted.
Explain how this growth of 17% a YEAR since 1929 in inflation adjusted occurred.. even though the population has grown by less than 2%?

The Strange Ups and Downs of the U.S. Economy Since 1929

Explain how come in 1890, there were about 4,000 millionaires in the United States, Google Answers: statistics on millionaires, late 1800s
In terms of today's dollars one million in 1890 would be equal to $27 million today. FACT:

The Inflation Calculator

How many people in the USA have net worth over $25 million today?
There were 172,000 households with net worth above $25 million...

The Number of High-Net-Worth Households in the US Continues to Grow - Marketing Charts

So in the 128 years since 1890 there are 1,312 times as many inflation adjusted millionaires...
even though the population in 1890 was 62,979,766 versus 2018 USA population 327,467,580 U.S. Population (2018) - Worldometers
has increased just 4.2 times.
Demographic history of the United States - Wikipedia
In other words while the population grew 4.2 times what it was in 1890, the number of inflation adjusted millionaires has grown 1,312 times!

Again explain how that has happened?
So if there are more people having the opportunities to become millionaires how does that fit with your "Let’s say the % of wealth owned by the top earners continues to grow and it gets to a point where they own 90% of our nations wealth. What does that do for the rest of us"

My criticism of your comment is you make a supposition: "let's say".... :LETS SAY:????

ONE word: SUPPOSITION

 

[healthmyths]

[
What do you mean “marvelously vague”? I literally just gave two examples of the type of impact I thought it would have. Less owners more renters/employees. Do you not see this happening?

And I agree with your concerns about the Fed but that’s a different subject.

Yes, finally gave examples, after the four times you nagged me about it and supplied none.


Nonetheless, your real estate scenario can't happen in the absence of a huge central bank printing up bazillions of dollars for the banksters to get their hands on first (i,e, the Fed)....But since the creation of wealth is in fact infinite, the likelihood your scenario occurring as a permanent end is next to zero.

Also, if you look at nations where there is the least economic mobility and very large wealth gaps, you will note that it is in places with the most stringent and oppressing economic central control and immense welfare states...This is what's strangling the middle class here, not "unchecked capitalism" or "trickle down".

P.S. The Fed is most definitely relevant here and not an entirely different subject.

Called QE1,2,3 this is what most people don't know the Fed Reserve did to prop up the stock market.
Quantitative easing also pushes down interest rates.

This damages the returns for traditionally safe investments such as financial vehicles including money market accounts, certificates of deposit (CDs), Treasurys and highly rated bonds. investors are forced into relatively riskier investments to find a return.
Many of these investors weight their portfolios towards equities, pushing up stock market prices.

How does quantitative easing in the U.S. affect the stock market?

Investopedia How does quantitative easing in the U.S. affect the stock market? | Investopedia

So how much did the Fed's QE1,2,3 pump up the stock market?
After spending $2 trillion on government bonds in an effort to stimulate the economy, the U.S. Federal Reserve can hardly admit that it doesn’t know how, or even if, it worked.
$2 Trillion Later, Does the Fed Even Know if Quantitative Easing Worked?

 

[rightwinger]

Do you think the 1% is accumulating wealth or not? Is it positive or negative for our economy?

The very notion that people keeping what is theirs in the first place is "giving"them something, presumes ALL of your earnings belong to The State.

It is called contributing to a society

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

Read the Constitution
It starts.....We the People

SO what?

It says nothing about me being required to give you people anything

We the People wanted to create a more perfect union
So we created a Government that is empowered to raise revenue and provide services for We the People

So, yes..........you are required to give

 

[g5000]

Whenever I hear about the "trickle down theory", I am reminded of William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech way back in 1896:


Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight. Upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital, or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.




Isn't it funny the Democrats used to represent the rural voters and the Republicans represented the urbanites?

 

[well named]

As long as wealth creation isn't static -which it isn't- then what's the problem?....You keep claiming that there's an "impact", yet leave it at that extremely vague claim.

If the pool of wealth is constantly expanding (which it is), to the point that everyone with an ounce of get-up-and-go can get some, who gives a rats ass if some are accumulating more than others?

I think this topic is complicated and I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that there is some reasonable evidence that too much inequality can impede growth. We would all be better off if there were higher growth, so that is definitely a significant impact, and one that compounds over time. There's an interesting discussion (with many citations of recent economics research) of the relationship between growth, inequality, and redistribution in this paper from some IMF economists, starting at p. 7, conclusions beginning on p. 25. They provide evidence from a variety of countries for the conclusion that inequality has a negative impact on medium to long term growth rates. They also note that extreme redistribution schemes are also impediments to growth, to be clear.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The very notion that people keeping what is theirs in the first place is "giving"them something, presumes ALL of your earnings belong to The State.

It is called contributing to a society

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

Read the Constitution
It starts.....We the People

SO what?

It says nothing about me being required to give you people anything

We the People wanted to create a more perfect union
So we created a Government that is empowered to raise revenue and provide services for We the People

So, yes..........you are required to give

No I am required to submit to having my money taken from me and wasted on all kinds of shit

and FYI nothing can be made more perfect.

If it is perfect it cannot be made any better by definition

 

[rightwinger]

It is called contributing to a society

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

Read the Constitution
It starts.....We the People

SO what?

It says nothing about me being required to give you people anything

We the People wanted to create a more perfect union
So we created a Government that is empowered to raise revenue and provide services for We the People

So, yes..........you are required to give

No I am required to submit to having my money taken from me and wasted on all kinds of shit

and FYI nothing can be made more perfect.

If it is perfect it cannot be made any better by definition

Afraid you are

Take it up with James Madison

 

[Slade3200]

[
What do you mean “marvelously vague”? I literally just gave two examples of the type of impact I thought it would have. Less owners more renters/employees. Do you not see this happening?

And I agree with your concerns about the Fed but that’s a different subject.

Yes, finally gave examples, after the four times you nagged me about it and supplied none.


Nonetheless, your real estate scenario can't happen in the absence of a huge central bank printing up bazillions of dollars for the banksters to get their hands on first (i,e, the Fed)....But since the creation of wealth is in fact infinite, the likelihood your scenario occurring as a permanent end is next to zero.

Also, if you look at nations where there is the least economic mobility and very large wealth gaps, you will note that it is in places with the most stringent and oppressing economic central control and immense welfare states...This is what's strangling the middle class here, not "unchecked capitalism" or "trickle down".

P.S. The Fed is most definitely relevant here and not an entirely different subject.

If you think I’m nagging you then let’s just stop now. I was asking a simple question which you avoided answering. I was trying to engage you in a conversation but it’s sounding like you have no interest in diving in so let’s just stop it here. I don’t have interest in engaging with someone who can’t listen, respond and have an open minded discussion.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

Read the Constitution
It starts.....We the People

SO what?

It says nothing about me being required to give you people anything

We the People wanted to create a more perfect union
So we created a Government that is empowered to raise revenue and provide services for We the People

So, yes..........you are required to give

No I am required to submit to having my money taken from me and wasted on all kinds of shit

and FYI nothing can be made more perfect.

If it is perfect it cannot be made any better by definition

Afraid you are

Take it up with James Madison

I already said I was required to submit to having my money taken from me by the fucking government I do not give it it is taken

 

[healthmyths]

As long as wealth creation isn't static -which it isn't- then what's the problem?....You keep claiming that there's an "impact", yet leave it at that extremely vague claim.

If the pool of wealth is constantly expanding (which it is), to the point that everyone with an ounce of get-up-and-go can get some, who gives a rats ass if some are accumulating more than others?

I think this topic is complicated and I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that there is some reasonable evidence that too much inequality can impede growth. We would all be better off if there were higher growth, so that is definitely a significant impact, and one that compounds over time. There's an interesting discussion (with many citations of recent economics research) of the relationship between growth, inequality, and redistribution in this paper from some IMF economists, starting at p. 7, conclusions beginning on p. 25. They provide evidence from a variety of countries for the conclusion that inequality has a negative impact on medium to long term growth rates. They also note that extreme redistribution schemes are also impediments to growth, to be clear.

BUT WHAT inequality are YOU describing?

Do you want this kind of "equality"?

 

[well named]

My pet peeves include people using the word proof when they mean evidence, and images of text.

Venezuela almost certainly counts as an example of the kind of "extreme redistribution" the authors note as being undesirable. It's probably also a good example of the fact that political stability is important to growth, and probably also the importance of international trade, I would think. I haven't really seen a good economic analysis of Venezuela's woes, it would be interesting to read one. The political failures are fairly obvious.

 

[Oddball]

If you think I’m nagging you then let’s just stop now. I was asking a simple question which you avoided answering. I was trying to engage you in a conversation but it’s sounding like you have no interest in diving in so let’s just stop it here. I don’t have interest in engaging with someone who can’t listen, respond and have an open minded discussion.

i wanted a more specific question, which you din't provide until recently.

Regardless, healtmyths has quite cogently and concisely dissected your mythical scenario, and I have pointed out that Fed policy is a significant driver of what's happening in the area of your concerns...Long and the sort of the matter, the thigs that you say you're concerrned about are both caused and exacerbated by too much aggression and tinkering in the market, by those who seek to jimmy the system to enrich themselves...The "rent seekers" that Marxists blabber about...These people are largely in the revolving door that goes between D.C., the Fed, and big Wall Street banksters....They're also the ones behind the stirring up of class envy, as it sends the economically and politically illiterate after targets of opportunity.

 

[Oddball]

I already said I was required to submit to having my money taken from me by the fucking government I do not give it it is taken

In other words....

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ok, I see your point. The 1% spends their money employing blue collar workers and buying goods that our business are selling. Fair point. But let me ask you something....

Let’s look at the sum of our currency as a whole and the 1% as a single entity for simplicity sake. Do you think the 1% are accumulating wealth or spending more than they make?

Let's say they're accumulating wealth....Does that mean that they're just stuffing money into big vaults, so they can roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck?

Libertarianism Is Quack Economics

No, they're passing it on to their mooching ugly-duckling younger generation: Huey, Dewey, and Louie.

Who in turn just stuff it in their mattresses and bury it in mason jars in their back yards, right?

Winning Through Bribing the Umpires

No, that unearned giveaway is used for buying them jobs that belong to those of us with more talent.

 

[Meathead]

How many times have we heard socialists bitch and moan about the filthy wealthy. The 1%ers! And how many times have we heard "trickle down" doesn't work or "rising tide lifts all boats" is wrong?

YET my simple question that even the most IGNORANT socialist, 1%er hater seemingly can't answer is this:

Do the filthy wealthy bury their wealth in the backyard or hide under their mattresses ?

Seriously folks what happens?
Those evil filthy wealthy 1%ers buy yachts. Yep they do ...who builds them?
They buy private jets. Who builds them?
They buy mansions. Who builds them. Who staffs them?

So ignorant people point out that "trickle down" doesn't work. Trump tax cuts were wrong. The little people aren't
getting the share and the filthy wealthy,
why they are ...."burying their wealth in the backyard or hiding under their mattresses"....???

Today's employment picture show more jobs than people to fill them!
Each of those NEW jobs creates TAX REVENUE to the federal government.
PROOF?
The economy added 3.2 million jobs since Trump took office:
Trump's Numbers (Second Quarterly Update) - FactCheck.org
Let's assume that each job pays Median household income in the U.S. rose to an estimated $59,055 in January 2018, an increase of nearly 0.4% from our December 2017 estimate of $58,829.Mar 1, 2018
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4152222-january-2018-median-household-income

So 3.2 million times $59,055 is at 12.4% payroll taxes $23.3 billion a year ... additional federal payroll revenue.

So what has happened to the $190 billion in gross income these 3.2 million job holders generated?
Did they bury in the backyard or hide under their mattresses?

Of course not...

So why then do ignorant people continue to use that phrase "trickle down" as a failure?
Look at the following chart and tell me how many of these 50 S&P companies are hiding their tax break
under the mattress or burying in the backyard?
View attachment 223060

The fact that even the Greek ecomomy is getting better is proof that lifting tides lift all boats..

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I agree that motivation for the wealthy to invest needs to stay intact however I don’t think the dollars in their bank accounts mean the same to them as regular folk. The wealthy aren’t worried about how to pay bills and afford the next family vacation, they are more concerned with legacy and power.

That's begging the question...And it smacks of thinly veiled envy to me.

Do you always answer a question with a question? How about you give an answer to my questions and then ask ones of your own and we can go back and forth that way.

So for the third time. Do you think the 1% is accumulating wealth or not? Is it positive or negative for our economy?

I want to know why this even matters....Why should it be any of my business in the first place?....What does a wealthy person being wealthy do to harm me or anyone else?...Do you realize that the detested "1%" (a dehumanizing term BTW) aren't the same people from year to year?

Birth Privileges Cause the Death of All Progress

Twenty percent of them started out being born in the 1%. That's a game-ender stat; to the unbrainwashed, it should only be 1% of them, of course.

 

[Oddball]

Birth Privileges Cause the Death of All Progress

Twenty percent of them started out being born in the 1%. That's a game-ender stat; to the unbrainwashed, it should only be 1% of them, of course.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is not someone....it is EVERY corporation on average paying their employees $7660 a year less than they used to

You're mixing the issues.

One is a jobs-market issue. The other is taxation.

They are paying less because the market allows it. Too many illegals have flooded the jobs market. Believe me. When the jobs market is balanced, they will pay top dollar for employees. They will practically throw money at candidates to lure them away from competition.

Taxation does not directly affect pay, although corporations are more likely to increase pay when they have a lower tax burden.

.

These Are the Little Piggies Who Went to Market

Just because the only thing these dumb jock businessmen care about is making money doesn't mean they're smart enough to know how to without cheating. Your passive and mindless dogma that the market impersonally and accurately picks who deserves to win or lose is nothing but a smug, self-comforting superstition.

 

[danielpalos]

Whenever I hear about the "trickle down theory", I am reminded of William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech way back in 1896:


Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight. Upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital, or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.




Isn't it funny the Democrats used to represent the rural voters and the Republicans represented the urbanites?

raise the minimum wage to raise taxes. the poor can use the money to create demand.