The 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong

[g5000]

The best part of Reaganomics was not the tax cuts. The best part was the reduction of tax expenditures. Reagan himself said the rich should not be receiving all the regressive tax breaks they were getting. He understood these did not create jobs or help the economy. He understood the playing field had been legislatively tilted unnaturally.

It wasn't the tax cuts which made Reagan great. Any jackass can pass tax cuts. It was the tax reform.

Another thing that made Reagan great was that he had the balls to admit he made a mistake. He admitted he cut too deeply and needed to roll back some of the cuts.

 

[Socialist]

No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)

Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.

In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.

The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.

By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.

Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015

I can easily see the correlation.....ONCE.....things have gotten to where they are today.

I can see where trickle down works in many instances too.

We are not the only country with a fat 1%.

"The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.

By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period."

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Does the IMF have a reason to endorse Trickle Down ?

I am not so sure.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Applying "trickle down" to Reaganomics was part of the Progressive Jihad on American capitalism and entreprenuership

It was an old theory rebranded as "Reaganomics".

So the Left attached the same old name to it.

Oh please, reaganomics was a disaster and a funny joke.

And by disaster you mean it obliterated the USSR and revitalized the US economy, right Komrade?

 

[Socialist]

Does the IMF have a reason to endorse Trickle Down ?

I am not so sure.

The IMF isn't the only body to conclude that trickle down economics is a joke, and more so, the study shows "redistributing" wealth to the lower classes actually increases growth, something idiots are against.

 

[Socialist]

Applying "trickle down" to Reaganomics was part of the Progressive Jihad on American capitalism and entreprenuership

It was an old theory rebranded as "Reaganomics".

So the Left attached the same old name to it.

Oh please, reaganomics was a disaster and a funny joke.

And by disaster you mean it obliterated the USSR and revitalized the US economy, right Komrade?

LOL. Reagan didn't obliterate the USSR, the USSR collapsed due to revisionism and Khrushchev's obsession with corn. (I hope someone get's this joke..)

 

[g5000]

Applying "trickle down" to Reaganomics was part of the Progressive Jihad on American capitalism and entreprenuership

It was an old theory rebranded as "Reaganomics".

So the Left attached the same old name to it.

Oh please, reaganomics was a disaster and a funny joke.

And by disaster you mean it obliterated the USSR and revitalized the US economy, right Komrade?

Obliterating the USSR had nothing to do with Reaganomics. The obliteration of the USSR was accomplished by the Reagan Doctrine.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Meh, socialism is trickle up poverty. No thanks.

Wow, are you seriously that stupid?
Fine, let's examine Cuba:
The GULLY Americas CUBA What Castro Found
Before the revolution:

• 75% of rural dwellings were huts made from palm trees.

• More than 50% had no toilets of any kind.

• 85% had no inside running water.

• 91% had no electricity.

• There was only 1 doctor per 2,000 people in rural areas.

• More than one-third of the rural population had intestinal parasites.

• Only 4% of Cuban peasants ate meat regularly; only 1% ate fish, less than 2% eggs, 3% bread, 11% milk; none ate green vegetables.

• The average annual income among peasants was $91 (1956), less than 1/3 of the national income per person.

• 45% of the rural population was illiterate; 44% had never attended a school.

• 25% of the labor force was chronically unemployed.

• 1 million people were illiterate ( in a population of about 5.5 million).

• 27% of urban children, not to speak of 61% of rural children, were not attending school.

• Racial discrimination was widespread.

• The public school system had deteriorated badly.

• Corruption was endemic; anyone could be bought, from a Supreme Court judge to a cop.

• Police brutality and torture were common.
  
  ___
  
  
  After the Revolution: (This data is OLD, it's even better now)
  “It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.
  
  Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong.
  
  -
  
  It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank’s Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.
  
  By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999;
  
  Chile’s was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.
  
  Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba’s achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.
  
  “Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,” according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. “You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.”
  
  Indeed, in Ritzen’s own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.
  
  “Even in education performance, Cuba’s is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.”
  
  It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.
  
  There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.
  
  The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.
  
  “Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”
  
  Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.
  
  The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably not.
  
  “What does it, is the incredible dedication,” according to Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has travelled to the island many times since.
  
  
  No one can say with any credibility that universal education and universal health care needs to be forced on any population. Castro didn't give it to them either. Together, nearly all Cubans worked hard to create the infrastructure and systems that they felt were essential for any progressive system.
  
  The Cuban people wanted universal health care for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, and organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a fair and complete h-c system.
  
  The people of Cuba wanted universal education for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a complete and world class ed system, and they have it.
  
  Cubans want to assist the world's poor with doctors and educators, instead of gun ship diplomacy.. and that is what they have done WITH their government, not at odds with their government.

Our top story tonight, the number of Americans getting in an inflated tube and heading toward Cuba is still zero

 

[Socialist]

Applying "trickle down" to Reaganomics was part of the Progressive Jihad on American capitalism and entreprenuership

It was an old theory rebranded as "Reaganomics".

So the Left attached the same old name to it.

Oh please, reaganomics was a disaster and a funny joke.

And by disaster you mean it obliterated the USSR and revitalized the US economy, right Komrade?

Obliterating the USSR had nothing to do with Reaganomics. The obliteration of the USSR was accomplished by the Reagan Doctrine.

You need to look into history, and more so..

 

[g5000]

Applying "trickle down" to Reaganomics was part of the Progressive Jihad on American capitalism and entreprenuership

It was an old theory rebranded as "Reaganomics".

So the Left attached the same old name to it.

Oh please, reaganomics was a disaster and a funny joke.

And by disaster you mean it obliterated the USSR and revitalized the US economy, right Komrade?

LOL. Reagan didn't obliterate the USSR, the USSR collapsed due to revisionism and Khrushchev's obsession with corn. (I hope someone get's this joke..)

Nobody was more obsessed with corn than Earl Butz. He's the reason we're the fattest country on earth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Applying "trickle down" to Reaganomics was part of the Progressive Jihad on American capitalism and entreprenuership

It was an old theory rebranded as "Reaganomics".

So the Left attached the same old name to it.

Oh please, reaganomics was a disaster and a funny joke.

And by disaster you mean it obliterated the USSR and revitalized the US economy, right Komrade?

LOL. Reagan didn't obliterate the USSR, the USSR collapsed due to revisionism and Khrushchev's obsession with corn. (I hope someone get's this joke..)

Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to let them defeat themselves and they did. He liberated all of Eastern Europe from the horrific, dehumanizing system our American Progressive love and admire

 

[Socialist]

Meh, socialism is trickle up poverty. No thanks.

Wow, are you seriously that stupid?
Fine, let's examine Cuba:
The GULLY Americas CUBA What Castro Found
Before the revolution:

• 75% of rural dwellings were huts made from palm trees.

• More than 50% had no toilets of any kind.

• 85% had no inside running water.

• 91% had no electricity.

• There was only 1 doctor per 2,000 people in rural areas.

• More than one-third of the rural population had intestinal parasites.

• Only 4% of Cuban peasants ate meat regularly; only 1% ate fish, less than 2% eggs, 3% bread, 11% milk; none ate green vegetables.

• The average annual income among peasants was $91 (1956), less than 1/3 of the national income per person.

• 45% of the rural population was illiterate; 44% had never attended a school.

• 25% of the labor force was chronically unemployed.

• 1 million people were illiterate ( in a population of about 5.5 million).

• 27% of urban children, not to speak of 61% of rural children, were not attending school.

• Racial discrimination was widespread.

• The public school system had deteriorated badly.

• Corruption was endemic; anyone could be bought, from a Supreme Court judge to a cop.

• Police brutality and torture were common.
  
  ___
  
  
  After the Revolution: (This data is OLD, it's even better now)
  “It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.
  
  Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong.
  
  -
  
  It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank’s Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.
  
  By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999;
  
  Chile’s was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.
  
  Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba’s achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.
  
  “Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,” according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. “You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.”
  
  Indeed, in Ritzen’s own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.
  
  “Even in education performance, Cuba’s is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.”
  
  It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.
  
  There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.
  
  The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.
  
  “Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”
  
  Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.
  
  The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably not.
  
  “What does it, is the incredible dedication,” according to Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has travelled to the island many times since.
  
  
  No one can say with any credibility that universal education and universal health care needs to be forced on any population. Castro didn't give it to them either. Together, nearly all Cubans worked hard to create the infrastructure and systems that they felt were essential for any progressive system.
  
  The Cuban people wanted universal health care for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, and organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a fair and complete h-c system.
  
  The people of Cuba wanted universal education for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a complete and world class ed system, and they have it.
  
  Cubans want to assist the world's poor with doctors and educators, instead of gun ship diplomacy.. and that is what they have done WITH their government, not at odds with their government.

Our top story tonight, the number of Americans getting in an inflated tube and heading toward Cuba is still zero

Oh for fucks sake, if you like capitalism so much, move to Somalia.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)

Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.

In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.

The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.

By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.

Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015

I can easily see the correlation.....ONCE.....things have gotten to where they are today.

I can see where trickle down works in many instances too.

We are not the only country with a fat 1%.

"The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.

By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period."

Please don't tell me you assume that everything else is constant in these environment.

I am not a fan of trickledown the way the far right plays it out.

But Bushynomics was not Reaganomics. Yet the left insisted on tying them together.

I also have an issue with trying to tease out 0.1% value (1 in a thousand) over five years. The noise alone is greater than that. I wish these people would do a little better.

The 0.4% number is more compelling IME. First, it is larger. Second it represents a much better compounding value for the lower 20%.

Keep in mind that the lower 20% of year 1 are almost never the lower 20% of year 5....but I digress.

 

[Socialist]

Applying "trickle down" to Reaganomics was part of the Progressive Jihad on American capitalism and entreprenuership

It was an old theory rebranded as "Reaganomics".

So the Left attached the same old name to it.

Oh please, reaganomics was a disaster and a funny joke.

And by disaster you mean it obliterated the USSR and revitalized the US economy, right Komrade?

LOL. Reagan didn't obliterate the USSR, the USSR collapsed due to revisionism and Khrushchev's obsession with corn. (I hope someone get's this joke..)

Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to let them defeat themselves and they did. He liberated all of Eastern Europe from the horrific, dehumanizing system our American Progressive love and admire

The USSR is very controversial, and the state capitalism it followed was horrific, however, no progressives admire the USSR.

 

[g5000]

The USSR collapsed because Reagan had inside information the Russian bogeyman was a paper tiger. Their military was a sham. He ramped up the arms race to force the USSR to try to keep up, and thus forced their inevitable implosion.

 

[Socialist]

The USSR collapsed because Reagan had inside information the Russian bogeyman was a paper tiger. Their military was a sham. He ramped up the arms race to force the USSR to try to keep up, and thus forced their inevitable implosion.

That was just a part of it.

 

[Socialist]

No fucking way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a fucking joke, can't believe people still defend it.)

Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.

In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.

The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.

By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.

Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015

I can easily see the correlation.....ONCE.....things have gotten to where they are today.

I can see where trickle down works in many instances too.

We are not the only country with a fat 1%.

"The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.

By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period."

Please don't tell me you assume that everything else is constant in these environment.

I am not a fan of trickledown the way the far right plays it out.

But Bushynomics was not Reaganomics. Yet the left insisted on tying them together.

I also have an issue with trying to tease out 0.1% value (1 in a thousand) over five years. The noise alone is greater than that. I wish these people would do a little better.

The 0.4% number is more compelling IME. First, it is larger. Second it represents a much better compounding value for the lower 20%.

Keep in mind that the lower 20% of year 1 are almost never the lower 20% of year 5....but I digress.

Read the study, they take alot of things into account.

 

[g5000]

It was an old theory rebranded as "Reaganomics".

So the Left attached the same old name to it.

Oh please, reaganomics was a disaster and a funny joke.

And by disaster you mean it obliterated the USSR and revitalized the US economy, right Komrade?

LOL. Reagan didn't obliterate the USSR, the USSR collapsed due to revisionism and Khrushchev's obsession with corn. (I hope someone get's this joke..)

Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to let them defeat themselves and they did. He liberated all of Eastern Europe from the horrific, dehumanizing system our American Progressive love and admire

The USSR is very controversial, and the state capitalism it followed was horrific, however, no progressives admire the USSR.

There is no nation, past or present, which the socialists can point to as a successful example of socialism. There's a reason for that.

As for the USSR, the left wing used to worship the USSR in the way pagans throw virgins into a volcano to prevent it from erupting. They thought Reagan was going to provoke their god into smiting us. They hated Reagan, not the USSR.

Kind of like the way some people who think they are conservatives bow down to Putin these days. They hate Obama, and salivate over what a manly man Putin is.

 

[Socialist]

Oh please, reaganomics was a disaster and a funny joke.

And by disaster you mean it obliterated the USSR and revitalized the US economy, right Komrade?

LOL. Reagan didn't obliterate the USSR, the USSR collapsed due to revisionism and Khrushchev's obsession with corn. (I hope someone get's this joke..)

Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to let them defeat themselves and they did. He liberated all of Eastern Europe from the horrific, dehumanizing system our American Progressive love and admire

The USSR is very controversial, and the state capitalism it followed was horrific, however, no progressives admire the USSR.

There is no nation, past or present, which the socialists can point to as a successful example of socialism. There's a reason for that.

As for the USSR, the left wing used to worship the USSR in the way pagans throw virgins into a volcano to prevent it from erupting. They thought Reagan was going to provoke their god into smiting us. They hated Reagan, not the USSR.

Kind of like the way some people who think they are conservatives bow down to Putin these days. They hate Obama, and salivate over what a manly man Putin is.

Seriously?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The USSR collapsed because Reagan had inside information the Russian bogeyman was a paper tiger. Their military was a sham. He ramped up the arms race to force the USSR to try to keep up, and thus forced their inevitable implosion.

That's not what the CIA was telling Reagan at the time. They were as surprised as anyone that the USSR collapsed