Do trickle-down economic theories work?

[Robert_Sock]

The Catholic Church has been trying to get people to behave for 2,000 years. The U.S. government has been trying to get people to behave for 200 years and more.

But people don’t do very well at behaving themselves. No economic system will ensure it.

But one thing is for sure. People can be generous and decent, but people also resent and resist coercion. As the Russians used to say (and perhaps still do) “As long as they pretend to pay us, we’ll pretend to work.”

It therefore seems to me that proper moral teaching and a fairly minimal level of constraint is most likely to come close to (but never achieve) a just society. One difficulty with the former is, of course, that one rarely hears the Church’s actual teachings about economic matters, proper charity, etc. And, nowadays when one does, one often hears “Liberation Theology Lite” from some person whose formative years were in the 1970s.

When God is ready, He will send down His Spirit and positive social change will take place. As I see happening more and more, Catholics do not have faith in the wisdom and power of God.

LOVE!

 

[Ridgerunner]

When God is ready, He will send down His Spirit and positive social change will take place. As I see happening more and more, Catholics do not have faith in the wisdom and power of God.

LOVE!

No. I think many Catholics do not have faith in the wisdom and good will of men.

 

[Robert_Sock]

No. I think many Catholics do not have faith in the wisdom and good will of men.

The wisdom and good will of men is 100% dependent upon God. These are the graces of God that He bestows upon those who love Him. OTOH God can turn a proud intellectual into a laughing lunatic on a moment’s notice.

LOVE!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Your analysis of what is “wrong” with our current approximation to a free market, i.e. calling it “encumbered”, is by no means universally agreed. To someone who disagrees with your analysis, it is not at all obvious that the free market should be more “unencumbered”. Some believe it should be more “encumbered”, but they would use a less derogatory term to describe it. Once you remove the automatic assumption that what you call a fault really is a fault, the choice to go in the direction of a less-regulated economy is on a par with the choice to go in the direction of a more-regulated economy.

Leaf, ANYONE may disagree with my analysis. I feel sorry for them because they “know not what they do”.

A Free Market is essentially destroyed with the first regulation, no matter how insignificant. For a Free Market thrive and provide all the benefits it provides to ALL, it must be…well…FREE.

I simply cannot understand how intelligent people who, in spite of incontrovertible evidence to the opposite, insist that prosperity can be increased by regulations. It is senseless.

When the suggestion is made to “try” something in our economic system, remember this is not like painting the living room yellow to see how we like it. In that case, the only cost if it doesn’t work out is a can of paint and an afternoon’s work. In the case of trying out a variation on our economic system, the cost could be a generation or more of widespread suffering. Such an experiment cannot be easily recalled or terminated. That is why changes to our economic system must be carefully considered to the best of our ability before they are tried.

Gee…it didn’t take very long for Russia to establish communism. It didn’t take East Germany very long to switch to Capitalism…probably less time than it takes to paint a room.

Trying out a variation on our economic system, could cost a generation or more of widespread suffering. (Obamacare is a prime example) However an overnight change to a Free Market would produce such an immediate increase in prosperity and economic growth that widespread suffering would cease to exist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf, ANYONE may disagree with my analysis. I feel sorry for them because they “know not what they do”.

It would be much more profitable to the debate if you would present evidence rather than express how sorry you feel for those who do not agree with you.

A Free Market is essentially destroyed with the first regulation, no matter how insignificant.

This may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how instrinsically good you think a totally free market is.

For a Free Market thrive and provide all the benefits it provides to ALL, it must be…well…FREE.

You say “ALL”, but there is no evidence that a free market does equally benefit all in a just manner.

I simply cannot understand how intelligent people who, in spite of incontrovertible evidence to the opposite, insist that prosperity can be increased by regulations. It is senseless.

The sum total of prosperity is not the only measure on which a system can or should be evaluated. There is also the matter of justice, which many view as more important than GDP.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It would be much more profitable to the debate if you would present evidence rather than express how sorry you feel for those who do not agree with you.

I was just being kind.
The evidence is there in the economic history of our country from 1900 to today.

This may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how instrinsically good you think a totally free market is.

I totally support the Free Market. It is not only intrinsically good…it is the BEST. I wouldn’t support it if it were not good.

You say “ALL”, but there is no evidence that a free market does equally benefit all in a just manner.

What do you mean by equally?

The Free Market does not make men equal. It provides the opportunity for ALL men to be what they WANT to be.

The sum total of prosperity is not the only measure on which a system can or should be evaluated. There is also the matter of justice, which many view as more important than GDP.

What do you mean by justice?

What could be more “just” than a system that expects the best of every man and rewards him accordingly. A system that leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I was just being kind.
The evidence is there in the economic history of our country from 1900 to today.

If that is evidence you want me to look at, then what I see in 114 years of gradually increasing regulation and gradually increasing prosperity (with occasional reversals that eventually return to the overall trend.) Is that really what you wanted to point out?

I totally support the Free Market. It is not only intrinsically good…it is the BEST. I wouldn’t support it if it were not good.

I am quite aware that you support it and the you think it the the best. The question is whether you can convince anyone else that it is the best.

What do you mean by equally?

The Free Market does not make men equal. It provides the opportunity for ALL men to be what they WANT to be.

I mean equally in the sense of justice as understood by the Church. It is fallacy to believe that everyone can be what they WANT to be in a free market.

What could be more “just” than a system that expects the best of every man and rewards him accordingly.

And how do you determine the “best” for any given man? Does that take into account varying degrees of intelligence, for example?

A system that leaves every man free to choose the work he likes…

Well, that is certainly not a completely free market. A man with some mental retardation has no chance of choosing to specialize in international finance or brain surgery, no matter how much he might “like” to. Besides, of all the regulations that have been imposed on the free market, I don’t remember one of them that says that anyone can’t try to compete in any field. That is a red herring.

… to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him?

Don’t forget to add “and luck”.

 

[freeRadical]

Please re-read my post and note that I specifically said ‘social system.’

I have read bits and pieces, but not interested in reading it any further.

LOVE!

What is a “social system”? I thought we were talking about economic systems in this thread?

Why are not interested in reading it?

 

[Robert_Sock]

What is a “social system”? I thought we were talking about economic systems in this thread?

Why are not interested in reading it?

Social system:
“The patterned series of interrelationships existing between individuals, groups, and institutions and forming a coherent whole.”

The social system will be heavily influenced by the economic system, and again, we want a social system that enhances cooperation, love and good moral character.

LOVE!

 

[freeRadical]

Social system:
“The patterned series of interrelationships existing between individuals, groups, and institutions and forming a coherent whole.”

The social system will be heavily influenced by the economic system, and again, we want a social system that enhances cooperation, love and good moral character.

LOVE!

That is a vary broad definition. What social system do we currently have in place in the US? Why would the social system be heavily influenced by the economic system?

How do you “enhance” cooperation, love, and good moral character?

 

[Robert_Sock]

That is a vary broad definition. What social system do we currently have in place in the US?

We are living in a RAPIDLY changing world; our social system seems very chaotic as a result.

Why would the social system be heavily influenced by the economic system?

Economic factors will determine how much time a person has to themselves, their standard of living and a general sense of competition/cooperation in a society.

How do you “enhance” cooperation, love, and good moral character?

EMPATHY! (in certain situation, it can become contagious, with everybody being infected with it).

LOVE!

 

[epan]

Free-market capitalism and free enterprise work. It incentivizes the rich to risk their money.

If the rich are overtaxed, like they are in the United States, they have to spend time and money to work around those rules.

The rich are not overtaxed.

1. The tax rates for the rich are the lowest they gave been since the beginning of the 20th century.
2. If the rich were overtaxed, then their wealth would not be increasing at the expense of the health of our society and our economy at such an alarming rate.

The time has come for the rich to start paying their fair share for the benefits they have received. Corporate welfare is at an obscene level.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I am skeptical of trickle-down economics. I don’t really have any reasoning for it but I just have this gut feeling that it doesn’t work.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What Pope Francis thinks.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

What Pope Francis thinks.

Nuff said.

 

[freeRadical]

Personally, I am skeptical of trickle-down economics. I don’t really have any reasoning for it but I just have this gut feeling that it doesn’t work.

Well, that’s good, because there is no such thing as trickle down economics. The only people that talk about trickle down are politicians and people that don’t understand economics. It’s a political pejorative term, nothing more.

 

[freeRadical]

The rich are not overtaxed.

1. The tax rates for the rich are the lowest they gave been since the beginning of the 20th century.

Doesn’t mean they aren’t overtaxed.

1. If the rich were overtaxed, then their wealth would not be increasing at the expense of the health of our society and our economy at such an alarming rate.

Do you have any evidence that the increased wealth of the rich hurts the “health” of our society and economy?

The time has come for the rich to start paying their fair share for the benefits they have received. Corporate welfare is at an obscene level.

What would you define their “fair share” to be? Why should someone have to pay more taxes just because they have earned more income and wealth?

I have never understood the justification for taxing income or wealth.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Doesn’t mean they aren’t overtaxed.

It is strongly suggestive of their not being overtaxed. It is hard to make the case that they are overtaxed when you see how well they are doing.

Do you have any evidence that the increased wealth of the rich hurts the “health” of our society and economy?

Do you have any evidence that school lunch programs or Headstart are hurting the health of our society and economy?

What would you define their “fair share” to be? Why should someone have to pay more taxes just because they have earned more income and wealth?

I have never understood the justification for taxing income or wealth.

Can you understand the justification for taxing those who earn only a little a smaller amount of tax?

 

[Seraphim73]

It is strongly suggestive of their not being overtaxed. It is hard to make the case that they are overtaxed when you see how well they are doing.

So you see people doing well and your first instinct is to use the government to knock them down a few pegs? And the better off they are the more you want to stick it to them? It’s quite obvious that you don’t see taxes as a method for raising revenue for legitimate government functions but rather you see them as a way to get even with those who have more stuff than you. All by the use of force I might add.

Can you understand the justification for taxing those who earn only a little a smaller amount of tax?

What percentage of a wealthy person’s income do you feel it is “fair” for the government to confiscate?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you see people doing well and your first instinct is to use the government to knock them down a few pegs? And the better off they are the more you want to stick it to them? It’s quite obvious that you don’t see taxes as a method for raising revenue for legitimate government functions but rather you see them as a way to get even with those who have more stuff than you. All by the use of force I might add.

Why can’t you stick to what I actually said rather than imagining all kinds of exagerations? Oh, yes, you can’t refute what I said, so you might as well make up a straw man and refute that.