Trickle down economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JamesATyler

Guest
Is there any kind of free market economics that isn’t trickle down? That is smart politics though. Especially to use the word ‘"trickle’’. I admit i am a layman in this area but if citizens are allowed to own businesses and keep the profits then it is them who decide how they will buy labor and talent and goods and negotiate what to pay for it. Trickle down economics is normal economics.

People who use that political phrase are only seemingly interested in changing into more like a command economic system where the government takes more of the profits and/or ownership. Our government, though, already has been taking huge amounts of the profits, up to like around half in many cases, I think. But the government doesn’t accomplish much with it, for the amount of money it is. And we have an incredible national debt. But it still wants more of the profit?

They want to take money from the top 1% of business owners, because they are supposedly giving too little to charity, and give it to a few hundred people in Congress to figure out how to spend, who as a collective whole have acted with such incompetence that we have a 20 trillion dollar debt. That is not a good plan.

Why are so many people buying into this? They think the government is inherently fair so give them everything to distribute?
 
People think “Democratic” Socialism will solve society’s problems, when it really worsens them.
 
I agree. Social democracy, on the other hand, has a good track record.
 
true. America is a representative republic, not a true pure democracy.
 
Ahhh. We obviously need some definitions here to help me out.
 
If America was a democracy, we would have to crowd every single person in america into a room, hear everyones opinion on each individual issue… the last true democracy in America are new england town meetings, and I dont even know if any NE towns have those anymore. Republics work far better.
 
OK. Greek-style. Yep that sort of democracy is high maintenance.
 
I was thinking about the Democratic angle when I was asking “why do they buy into this”? The idea is that since the government is for the people it will spend for the people’s good faithfully. Two considerations:

Does it really have a good track record of spending wisely in favor of the people at this time?

Isn’t socialism inherently crooked? We buy the products from great companies as a people, and then as a people we go and collect the profits and provide for ourselves. That seems unfair.
 
Last edited:
Corporations will use the tax cut to invest wherever they want and as in the past, they invested overseas rather than here in the US.

Meanwhile, they kept the tax credit for the expenses they incur moving to other countries like China and India. They also get a tax credit for the cost of operations in those countries.

Trickledown can only work if investors invest in America, but the free market will determine this, not the tax cut.

This is why the middle class will make up the shortfall of tax revenues that won’t come from the fantasy of a robust economy.

Jim
 
Well, no, I think the idea is not that a democratic government spends more wisely, but that it spends the way The People want it to spend.
 
We don’t have a democratic government. Nothing about our government is democratic
 
Ok. But I can’t figure out why I should take the business man’s money since I had nothing to do with earning it.
 
Then you are arguing for no government at all, because government must tax?
 
My father was an economist and repeatedly expressed that trickle -down economics was a bunch of baloney since Reagan popularized the term. “Trickle down” became a family catchphrase and joke because Dad mentioned it derisively so often. As for why people buy into it, the ones who like it are obviously in a position where it justifies them getting some benefit. Most people don’t know anything about economics anyway and will believe whatever the candidate they like better says.
 
Instead of “trickle down” economics it should be called “flood up” economics.

The idea that helping the rich get richer by taking from the poor so the rich will help relieve the poor would be laughably ridiculous, were it not so utterly devilish.

When the rich are given tax breaks and other advantages, it almost NEVER “trickles down” to the poor.

The mega rich don’t “create wealth” — nay, they take wealth. They aren’t going to “create jobs” because they get to keep an extra million dollars - they are going to buy themself a nice new yacht.
 
Yes. Trickle down is a conjuring trick to cover policies which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. In practice little of the benefit trickles down (except to the manufacturers of luxury yachts and the like).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top