Trickle down economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, we are talking about economics. I’d argue that since many people will now never have an opportunity for an advanced education, educational resources should not be wasted on them. Why have some guy sit through four years of college to flip a hamburger?

If trickle-down economics is to be of any value to us, it has to strengthen the country. That means better-quality citizens, better vision for the nation’s success, and having as many people as possible firing on all cylinders.
 
So, are you for or against educating the great unwashed masses?
 
whyeyeman said:
That poster is not me, but wanting an equal distribution of wealth most certainly is about jealousy. True capitalism is the free association of individuals, and so any distribution of wealth is based on an individuals actions and cannot be said to be unfair.
Click to expand...
Equal distributions of wealth based on individual’s actions can certainly be unfair. You have to understand that most people don’t really have unlimited options, at least not if we want to eat. I think the ultimate appeal to “freedom” is disingenuous if my options end up being “work a low-paying retail job that takes all my time and energy, or don’t work at all.” My actions are constrained by the actions of others, and we can very well end up in situations where the actions of others mean I don’t have a realistic option to get much reward for my work.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Well, we are talking about economics. I’d argue that since many people will now never have an opportunity for an advanced education, educational resources should not be wasted on them. Why have some guy sit through four years of college to flip a hamburger?

If trickle-down economics is to be of any value to us, it has to strengthen the country. That means better-quality citizens, better vision for the nation’s success, and having as many people as possible firing on all cylinders.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that education serves no purpose but to give people an opportunity to get better-paying jobs or jobs that cannot be done without a formal education? Do you really think that a formal education makes no difference to that portion of the citizenry that don’t profit financially from it?

I don’t think a college education is for everyone. People learn in different ways. There are some very bright people who don’t believe college classes are of any great educational value to them. I don’t have any quarrel with that. I also don’t have a quarrel with those who do want to educate themselves by that route (that is, a formal college education) even though they don’t have plans to get a financial return on their investment.
 
Last edited:
Of course a good education serves a purpose to the people who have it. It enriches life greatly, and gives them a sense of achievement and a lot of wonderful experiences.

But money enriches people, too: having money builds esteem and provides increased self-determination. Freedom without money is pretty much the freedom to choose which soup line you want to stand in.

My point is this: if we are going to invest money in people’s education enriches their lives, then how is that different from infesting money in their health care, their communities, and so on?

And if we are educating people for the benefit of the society, then why don’t we follow up on that initial investment with more job training, more R&D that could lead new new industries, and so on? Why just make 50,000 Starbucks and make every kid with a college degree work for minimum wage?

As for taxes-- as I said before, the wealthy receive far more benefit from the state, and should be expected to pay more into it. And if you properly follow through on our investment in people’s educations, those companies will have better people to work for, will make more profit, will be able to hire more and more, and so on.
 
MonteRCMS said:
If a student has basic skills and background, they will be able to choose further academics that will serve them well.
Click to expand...
Prior to free enterprise capitalism, the only skill one could use to increase their wealth was thievery. Thievery never created more wealth, it merely redistributed it. In the middle ages, feudal kings legalized their thievery and sometimes called it “taxes.” Fortunately, mercantilism followed feudalism. One could create personal wealth by trading instead of stealing.

Ironically but fortunately, today the skills the student should acquire to serve himself well must first serve others well.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Pope [now Saint] John Paul II issued an encyclical: Centesimus Annus.

It is worth reading:
Click to expand...
It is a complex document with a number of very important points. Is there a specific point in this document you wish to highlight as it relates to the present discussion?
 
I am going with this quote:
Another important principle is undoubtedly that of the right to “private property”. The amount of space devoted to this subject in the Encyclical shows the importance attached to it. The Pope is well aware that private property is not an absolute value, nor does he fail to proclaim the necessary complementary principles, such as the universal destination of the earth’s goods
Click to expand...
It is important to remember both principles. I think though the point Monte was making was the intro where the origin of capital is referenced. Maybe?
 
Last edited:
Which part of the Catechism is the most important?

Well, all of the Catechism is important.

Same thing applies to Centesimus Annus.

It’s not a huge document. You can read it in a matter of minutes.

If you are posting here, then you are able to read quickly.

But I was looking around and found this:

google youtube economics
 
Of course, Centesimus Annus can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some use it to justify something closer to pure capitalism, some used it to justify the mixed economy. CA allows for government regulation of the economy, the form it takes is left to our prudential judgement.
 
While not perfect, we should compare to standards of living around the globe.
 
buffalo said:
While not perfect, we should compare to standards of living around the globe.
Click to expand...
No we should not. It serves no purpose except to dismiss the sufferings of the impoverished here. It does nothing to eliminate their woes…its akin to saying “I don’t know what you are complaining about, it could be worse!”
 
Last edited:
Yes indeed, it could be worse. We live in a fallen world. We are not in heaven. Not to say we should not try to improve.
 
Hereiam said:
No we should not. It serves no purpose except to dismiss the sufferings of the impoverished here. It does nothing to eliminate their woes…its akin to saying “I don’t know what you are complaining about, it could be worse!”
Click to expand...
You are deflecting, and the poor here really aren’t suffering.
Most have housing, a phone, and a big screen TV.
Also access to a washer/dryer and enough food so that most are overweight.

Net, our capitalistic economy has improved the standard of living for everyone here.
 
Last edited:
What you said is pretty much correct, but I’d advise against the use of the phrase, “trickle down economics”. Trickle down economics is actually a pejorative made up to demean that particular economic philosophy.

We prefer “Supply Side Economics”.
 
Theo520 said:
Most have housing, a phone, and a big screen TV.

Also access to a washer/dryer and enough food so that most are overweight.
Click to expand...
Fair enough…This speaks volumes of your lack understanding and compasdion about poverty.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top