Trickle down economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Distributism? …
Click to expand...
I took a look at it and it looks good. It seems in some ways I’ve been supporting such a system or a form but without having an actual name for it. It unfortunately doesn’t get much attention.
Crocus said:
Netherlands.
Click to expand...
The description seems no different from other countries but it would appear they’ve made it work better. I suppose the many different parties do help but at the same time it can be a hindrance for other issues having to deal with many factions.
 
pnewton said:
Picking the worst as one who worked in concert with Catholic social justice in helping the poor and needy instead of those who promoted nepotism and self-interest;
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that the Pacific Railroad Bill was not anything to do with corruption and self-interest? Do you honestly believe that it was just pure coincidence that he owned land in Council Bluffs?
pnewton said:
picking one who started ended slaver over those who owned and oppressed their fellow many, explains a lot of your comments.
Click to expand...
He ended it violently when other nations, and even northern states had figured out how to end it peacefully and without causing more pain and deaths to the freed slaves. America and Haiti were the only countries to use violence to end slavery. Peaceful ending of slavery was by far the norm.

Lincoln illegally started an unnecessary war that took the lives of 650,000 people. The same illegal war destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands more, and its aftermath resulted in the deaths of almost a million Blacks who suffered even further from starvation and disease. I don’t believe that violence is humane or Christ like in any sense of the word.

Do you honestly call these actions respect for life?
pnewton said:
As much as I admire the Constiution
Click to expand...
I find that difficult to believe. You seem to worship a president who defiled it. You sound like a member of the Church of Lincoln.
pnewton said:
I remind you that this is a Catholic website. It must be expected that Catholic teaching, drawn directly from Scripture, is going to be defended, and the doctrine of social justice is just as much a pro-life issue as those issues cherry-picked by those who place their wants above what God wants, whether the false idol be money, guns, race of America exceptionalism.
Click to expand...
I understand that. The scriptures should be defended. I would hope that the Catholic Church would not worship Bloody Lincoln for the lack of respect he had for human life and freedom.
 
boclucky14 said:
If any state could dissolve it’s connection to the Union on a whim [as the South did], there wouldn’t be much of a Union. And it definitely would not have lasted in any meaningful fashion against the still more powerful European powers.
Click to expand...
Interesting topic, but hard to know any of this. The Northeastern states, early in the 19th century, had a secession movement all their own. It eventually petered out, but it probably had the support of the majority at the time.

And I think any European power would have had a terrible time trying to subdue a confederation like that or the CSA, either one. Bringing sufficient troops and supplies would have been exceedingly difficult and, after all, the CSA held off the North for four years despite the North’s massive manpower and resources. And too, the nearly impenetrable “Greater Appalachia” states stretching from southern Pennsylvania to east Texas would always be on the flanks of the European invaders. Those areas were (and still are) populated largely by Scots-Irish who absolutely won’t accept despotism.

I remember reading about the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil War. It was a thorn in the side of the Union for nearly the entire war. It pointed right at DC and was easily traveled by Confederate forces, and with friendlies all around. But from the Union’s standpoint, it would be a march through hostile territory, ending nowhere. That’s what European invaders would have dealt with almost everywhere.
 
Lemuel said:
I find that difficult to believe. You seem to worship a president who defiled it. You sound like a member of the Church of Lincoln.

I understand that. The scriptures should be defended. I would hope that the Catholic Church would not worship Bloody Lincoln for the lack of respect he had for human life and freedom.
Click to expand...
Wow! First, there is no “Church of Lincoln.” Second, if this is how you read my through these posts, maybe you can be excused your judgment in other areas.
 
Last edited:
The Church of Lincoln exists but it’s not a church. It’s a phrase coined by Lincoln scholars to describe the Lincoln worship we see in this country, largely created by public schools who indoctrinate kids with revised history.
 
A lot of my problem with the current system is that many of the jobs created are low-wage jobs that can’t actually support a family (and a single person might be questionable). Employing lots and lots of people at $9/hr part-time doesn’t leave a lot of money trickling down - but if the majority of employers are doing that, people will take it because $9/hr is better than $0/hr, even if they can’t actually pay their bills at $9/hr.

A lot of better jobs require some (name removed by moderator)ut of funds to get. Either paying for training, or paying to move to another location, or something like that. Plus there’s saturation issues - the question of whether there are enough “good” jobs compared to the number of people who need to support themselves on a job.
 
DarkLight said:
A lot of my problem with the current system is that many of the jobs created are low-wage jobs that can’t actually support a family (and a single person might be questionable). Employing lots and lots of people at $9/hr part-time doesn’t leave a lot of money trickling down - but if the majority of employers are doing that, people will take it because $9/hr is better than $0/hr, even if they can’t actually pay their bills at $9/hr.

A lot of better jobs require some (name removed by moderator)ut of funds to get. Either paying for training, or paying to move to another location, or something like that. Plus there’s saturation issues - the question of whether there are enough “good” jobs compared to the number of people who need to support themselves on a job.
Click to expand...
You will never be able to complete on a wage basis with someone in a country with no EPA, no OSHA and no minimum wage laws.

Free trade steals from the American worker.
 
Vonsalza said:
You will never be able to complete on a wage basis with someone in a country with no EPA, no OSHA and no minimum wage laws.

Free trade steals from the American worker.
Click to expand...
A better more workable model is called ‘balanced trade’
Countries can still specialize but there is a throttle on exporting all the jobs to the cheapest producer.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
You will never be able to complete on a wage basis with someone in a country with no EPA, no OSHA and no minimum wage laws.

Free trade steals from the American worker.
Click to expand...
A better more workable model is called ‘balanced trade’
Countries can still specialize but there is a throttle on exporting all the jobs to the cheapest producer.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn’t goods be produced by the cheapest producer?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Why shouldn’t goods be produced by the cheapest producer?
Click to expand...
The concern is that the “cheapest producer” is often achieved by abusing the worker. For example, ignoring worker safety because the country you’re producing in won’t make you do anything if a worker is injured or killed. At extremes you even get cases where you’re essentially buying the product of slave labor, because it’s not illegal in that country (especially when you consider systems that aren’t legally slavery but are effectively such).
 
The term “free market” is equivocal, as is nearly every appeal to freedom, because it doesn’t specify what type of freedom is in question. If we mean subsidiarity, freedom to make practical decisions without unnecessary interference from managerial bureaucrats, that is good. But freedom to engage in any given practice may or may not be good.

As for tax burden, the government spends money in a manner unconnected to how much tax revenue it receives. The tax code needs to ensure that the government receives as much as it spends, otherwise hyperinflation will result. Saying that the tax burden should be imposed mainly on large businesses seems to be a valid position.

Keep in mind that the tax code is logically but not legally linked to the welfare state. All federal taxes could be abolished tomorrow, and welfare payments would continue as normal (with ensuing hyperinflation).
 
Even if foreign goods weren’t cheaper on account of immoral employer practices (which they usually are), but due to some other reason, it would still be a dereliction of duty on the government’s part to allow the rich to profit off foreign labor while Americans go unemployed.

The whole idea of price competition. there’s a reason why price controls have been used extensively throughout history. Businesses should compete on quality, not who can offer the lowest price.
 
How do you personally shop?

What do you personally spend your personal money on?

Do you expend effort to educate yourself? There is science as well as literature. There is math as well as history.

Do you expend effort to save some of your personal earnings and invest them prudently for the future?

Do you spend your savings on lottery tickets and bitcoins? Or do you put your savings into owning shares of companies that have been around and thrived for 50 years?
 
When one of the parties to a debate begins to wantonly insult the other, you can pretty well say who won.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top