What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[martybegan]

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.

lol, so you get whatever your professors fill your head with.

Get some real world experience sonny, then talk.

 

[Idadunno]

History is your friend--ignorance is not.

 

[RDD_1210]

Communism is still alive and well. Now it goes under the label "progressive" or "liberal."

I thought liberals were Nazis?

Communism/Fascism/Liberalism - They are all just variations on the same thing. They are all justifications for government controlling how you live.

Thats it! They are all just the same thing.

Words don't need meanings, weeeeeeee!!

 

[martybegan]

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.

The money is going to come from somewhere. Its either given out from the production of a product or service, or doled out by the government. Supply side economics, i.e. capitalism figures that if the people who provide jobs have more money, there will be more available for others to acquire via the providing of goods and services. Progressives want the money to be "washed" via government action, and thus achieve two outcomes, government control of the economy, and all sorts of nice cushy government jobs that increase the power of the bureaucratic state.

My brother in law is a beneficiary of "trickle down" he does high end carpentry work in NYC, mostly walls and ceilings. So when some 1%'er redo their apartment he makes money, all the other trades make money, the architects make money, and the government makes money.

What progressives prefer is that they hand out money to him, thus are able to control him, and have 20 people working for government checking, re-checking and validating the payment.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

lol, so you get whatever your professors fill your head with.

Get some real world experience sonny, then talk.

Tell us about your "real world experience" Marty. We can all use a good laugh.

 

[martybegan]

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

lol, so you get whatever your professors fill your head with.

Get some real world experience sonny, then talk.

Tell us about your "real world experience" Marty. We can all use a good laugh.

17 years of Engineering work, budgeting for major (50 million plus) public works projects. Managing said projects, doing the basic research for the basis of said projects.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Nope, guess again.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Bullshit. You aren't a fourth year anything except moron.

 

[Peach]

OK, so no one knows, so far.

Progressives like to make fun of stuff without understanding it.

In reality all economics are trickle down, its just the source that changes.

For sure they dont understand it. Hell, they dont understand economics as a whole.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

lol, so you get whatever your professors fill your head with.

Get some real world experience sonny, then talk.

Tell us about your "real world experience" Marty. We can all use a good laugh.

17 years of Engineering work, budgeting for major (50 million plus) public works projects. Managing said projects, doing the basic research for the basis of said projects.

He'll denigrate that because he doesnt know what those terms mean.

 

[rightwinger]

lol, so you get whatever your professors fill your head with.

Get some real world experience sonny, then talk.

Tell us about your "real world experience" Marty. We can all use a good laugh.

17 years of Engineering work, budgeting for major (50 million plus) public works projects. Managing said projects, doing the basic research for the basis of said projects.

What does that have to do with political science?

 

[The Rabbi]

Progressives like to make fun of stuff without understanding it.

In reality all economics are trickle down, its just the source that changes.

For sure they dont understand it. Hell, they dont understand economics as a whole.

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?

 

[The Rabbi]

Tell us about your "real world experience" Marty. We can all use a good laugh.

17 years of Engineering work, budgeting for major (50 million plus) public works projects. Managing said projects, doing the basic research for the basis of said projects.

What does that have to do with political science?

Nothing. We're discussing economics. Those are separate fields, btw. I realize to someone who never attended college they all sound the same though.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Nope, guess again.

Rabbi Threads 101

Rabbi: You cannot define X

Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X

Rabbi: See? You cannot define X

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Nope, guess again.

Rabbi Threads 101

Rabbi: You cannot define X

Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X

Rabbi: See? You cannot define X

PLease post where you have defined trickle down economics. Posting cartoons and snark isnt defining anything, brainiac.

 

[Peach]

For sure they dont understand it. Hell, they dont understand economics as a whole.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope, guess again.

Rabbi Threads 101

Rabbi: You cannot define X

Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X

Rabbi: See? You cannot define X

PLease post where you have defined trickle down economics. Posting cartoons and snark isnt defining anything, brainiac.

Rabbi: You cannot define X

Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X

Rabbi: See? You cannot define X

 

[Peach]

17 years of Engineering work, budgeting for major (50 million plus) public works projects. Managing said projects, doing the basic research for the basis of said projects.

What does that have to do with political science?

Nothing. We're discussing economics. Those are separate fields, btw. I realize to someone who never attended college they all sound the same though.

It is only through the supply side that innovation can be spurred, Keynes was not so much wrong, as narrow minded in his views; yes, if labor controls the economy, the wealth of labor will increase. Without the markets & supply increasing however, there will be no re input of that wealth. Products & services must increase in order for earned wealth to be reinvested in the economy. Thus Keynes should be discarded, old theory, and incompete.

 

[martybegan]

Tell us about your "real world experience" Marty. We can all use a good laugh.

17 years of Engineering work, budgeting for major (50 million plus) public works projects. Managing said projects, doing the basic research for the basis of said projects.

What does that have to do with political science?

I has to do with economics. History is my hobby, mostly military history, but other stuff as well.

 

[bripat9643]

I thought liberals were Nazis?

Communism/Fascism/Liberalism - They are all just variations on the same thing. They are all justifications for government controlling how you live.

Thats it! They are all just the same thing.

Words don't need meanings, weeeeeeee!!

Yes. there is really very little difference between them. The Rhetoric is even largely the same.