Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
"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.
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
I'm not surprised in this Bizzarro World Obama has created that uninformed liberals associate trickle down with the impact of Obama's economic policies.
The correct word to use is sluggish.
As for what it means...the short answer is the exuberance that was the result of Reagan's highly effective economic policies in the 80's.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From what I remember of Keynesian economics, the main concept is government deficit spending can be used to fix an economic downturn. However what we currently do is not Keynesian because the theory states that you remove that debt during economic upturns, i.e. you use the surplus to pay off the debt.
We do not do that now, we use up any surplus to expand the size of government, so we only use the first part of the Keynesian cycle.
The best example I've seen of trickle down economics is when a city gives a corporation an incentive like a tax break to move to the city bringing a substantial number of jobs to the city. The people are happy cause they like the income they receive. The corporation is happy because they get to improve their profit. The city is happy because, lets face it when the people have money the city prospers and when the people are out work the city does not prosper... see detroit for example of what happens when the corporations leave.
In contrast, when you demonize investors and tax the shit out of them... they tend to leave with their money and lay off their workers.
Our founders had the answer. We had the answer after WWII. Then the communist leaches took over the democrat party and welfare handouts became the norm over jobs. Now you can be just fine and dandy living in detroit without a job. Who needs work when you have trickle down welfare.
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.
From what I remember of Keynesian economics, the main concept is government deficit spending can be used to fix an economic downturn. However what we currently do is not Keynesian because the theory states that you remove that debt during economic upturns, i.e. you use the surplus to pay off the debt.
We do not do that now, we use up any surplus to expand the size of government, so we only use the first part of the Keynesian cycle.
Keynesian policies fail to work regardless of how they're done. There's plenty history to show that.
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.
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.
Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics, 'free trade', etc) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite
The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.
In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."
WHICH side was correct again?
U.S. capital gains rates vs. GDP
U.S. tax brackets and GDP
Straight marginal rates vs. GDP
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
I'm not surprised in this Bizzarro World Obama has created that uninformed liberals associate trickle down with the impact of Obama's economic policies.
The correct word to use is sluggish.
As for what it means...the short answer is the exuberance that was the result of Reagan's highly effective economic policies in the 80's.
When Ronnie had a top rate of 50% the first 6 years? Or his tripling US debt? Perhaps the 14 million jobs in 8 years compared to 9+ million under Carter's 4 years?
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.
From what I remember of Keynesian economics, the main concept is government deficit spending can be used to fix an economic downturn. However what we currently do is not Keynesian because the theory states that you remove that debt during economic upturns, i.e. you use the surplus to pay off the debt.
We do not do that now, we use up any surplus to expand the size of government, so we only use the first part of the Keynesian cycle.
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.
From what I remember of Keynesian economics, the main concept is government deficit spending can be used to fix an economic downturn. However what we currently do is not Keynesian because the theory states that you remove that debt during economic upturns, i.e. you use the surplus to pay off the debt.
We do not do that now, we use up any surplus to expand the size of government, so we only use the first part of the Keynesian cycle.
Whenever I hear "trickle down economics", I am reminded of the famous Cross of Gold speech by William Jennings Bryan. I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn just how long the trickle down theory has been around.
Here's the relevant part of that speech:
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.
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.
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
