Sign up  |  Log in

Trickle down economics

So, it’s a myth right? We agree on that?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

I’m all for it.

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

hpracing007 wrote:

I’m all for it.

right. But, can you please shelve your sexual love for trump on this for 20 seconds and think about this objectively?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

It has worked as a temporary stimulus to the economy. It has never worked as a catalyst of lasting, long-term growth. One of the main reasons for this is that the immediate beneficiaries of tax cuts tend to be shareholders, who have a lower marginal propensity to spend and are generally wealthy as a class (they already have a bunch of toys; they are not necessarily going to run out and buy more stuff at the margin because of a tax cut — they’ll bank it instead). The cuts never permanently bolster the degree of consumer spending, though there might be a short-term boost due to the wealth effect. Some would argue that the increase in investment this causes leads to higher growth in the long-term, but since 1987, when the system has had an excess of liquidity and investable assets sloshing around in it anyhow thanks to the Great Moderation, I’m not so sure that correlation is as airtight as it once might have been. 

"When what I'm doing isn't working, that's when I'll take your criticisms." -- Me, some time ago

it all depends on the actual data right.

if the rich is spending their money then trickle down is working. 

if they arent, then it is not. so tax them.

theoretically, the rich will only spend money when the people at the bottom prove their value. but what is the bottom has no value? then you’ll have to shift from trickle down to trickle up. where the rich porovdie value to the poor.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

I don’t believe it’s a myth. I do believe that it is not bounded by country borders, which poses difficulty since its typically viewed through a domestic only perspective 

It’s Keynesian stimulus it usually boosts the economy since you’re essentially dumping cash on people.  The question is whether it’s worth the debt and whether it’s better than targeted spending by the govt (roads, bridges, military, etc.).  

you give tax cuts to the rich. they will invest that money on things that they believe will make them more money which adds value. (assuming ppl invest to make money) and will therefore fuel growth as dow said.

you tax the rich and give money to the poor. then the poor will spend the money on things that they need. (like food shelter and transportation) or if you give too much then they spend it on what they want. which i imagine is hookers and big cars or busses.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

rawraw wrote:

I don’t believe it’s a myth. I do believe that it is not bounded by country borders, which poses difficulty since its typically viewed through a domestic only perspective 

Very good point.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

You have to define this by region and time horizon.  It definitely has worked for much of America’s history although works less now.  Part of it is technology, economic shifts, part of it is that a lot of the trickling down has gone from the US to China as raw raw pointed out and ultimately, the current structure of capitalism is probably due for some tweaks because I do agree it is developing major failings.  Anyhow, you can’t just look at this specifically within one region or narrow time horizon without specifying that and any economic policy needs to be evaluated within the economic system it is being applied in.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

yep if the rich people are stupid. like ppl who inherited it. an waste it on bottle service. then not taxing them is pretty stupid policy. you should always tax stupidity.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Arguing an economic expansion is exceptionally easy to do on the heels of lowering taxes. But saying it doesn’t promote inequality is a little more difficult. Which in my opinion is the entirety of what trickle down economics is about. It has nothing to do with an expanding economy. Sure, it’s clear that lowering taxes, and rising GDP levels are positively correlated, but that is besides the point. We’re talking about wealth “trickling” down to poorer households. Which is not an observation with lower tax cuts. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

there are actually counterarguments to that. specifically ppl dun really care about inequality as long as they are getting a lot more than what they need and dimsum.

there are actually othere concerns with tax cuts for the us though.

specifically if we keep increasing the deficit and debt burden, the concern is that rates will rise and the money govt is borrowing will crowd out money that should go to the private sector.  aka “the crowding out effect”. 

and the current pop thinking is that private sector is a better allocator than the public sector.

anyways so nice that rates never rose and everything theoretical i learned in econ was a big waste of time!

nowadays the popular though is that governments worldwide specifically the us (since we are the world’s currency reserve) will continue maintaining low rates by issuing more currency and buying back their own debt.

fed independence is just a marketing ploy to convince other countries to use us currency/bonds as a monetary reserve.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

CEO10K-DAY wrote:

Arguing an economic expansion is exceptionally easy to do on the heels of lowering taxes. But saying it doesn’t promote inequality is a little more difficult. Which in my opinion is the entirety of what trickle down economics is about. It has nothing to do with an expanding economy. Sure, it’s clear that lowering taxes, and rising GDP levels are positively correlated, but that is besides the point. We’re talking about wealth “trickling” down to poorer households. Which is not an observation with lower tax cuts. 

I’d like to change my vote and side with CEO.  I was conflating trickle down economics (TDE so I don’t have to type it again) with capitalism.  You don’t need a PhD to look at these charts and notice some things.

Related image

Related image

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

I didn’t have time to try to pull the data sets today so I just set the marginal tax rate chart as transparent and aligned the X-axis.

No photo description available.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

I’d like to change my vote and side with CEO. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

I was arguing this with someone yesterday, and in a drunken stupor I resorted to asking the experts via the water cooler. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

yesterday i was teaching this dude how to pick up women (including my fiance’s sister). i was conflicted. whether to tell him to take the numbers approach and hit on girls concurrently. or to just focus on 1 girl at a time.

hes not good with women and is a virgin. but hes 25 and a tall fit white dude. i am surprised, he should have no problems in the women department. lastly what are your thoughts on older virgins? ticking time bombs, or just people who lack balls.

anyways y am i taking the time to help this dude. his dad is a cfa man. and hes a friend of one of my rich friends. so i figure **** it. i’ll pass down some knowledge. could be a rich dude. rich ppl only have rich friends right.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Maybe he is very religious or is secretly gay. You should test this theory by giving him a shoulder rub on the pretense of reducing stress and see how he responds, then take it from there. 

As for the original question, the answer for this, and most economics questions, is sure it works - just for some people and not for others. 

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

^hahah ohai. that was actually what i thought as well. religious or gay. but he likes bishes. he literally took notes over the phone. i confirmed both. he just doesnt holler. a chick literally had to rub shoulders against each other to get him to hit on her. and all he could think of was me saying, just shove your phone in her face. lol anyways he got the digits of the girl. he called me cuz he was celebrating over that tiny success. i told him that as a man he needs to make the first move. it is very imp.

he actually said a pretty gay thing though. something about just wanting to have someone as a companion, someone to talk to. lol. anyways its eitehr gay or virginy.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Nerdyblop wrote:

yesterday i was teaching this dude how to pick up women (including my fiance’s sister). i was conflicted. whether to tell him to take the numbers approach and hit on girls concurrently. or to just focus on 1 girl at a time.

hes not good with women and is a virgin. but hes 25 and a tall fit white dude. i am surprised, he should have no problems in the women department. lastly what are your thoughts on older virgins? ticking time bombs, or just people who lack balls.

anyways y am i taking the time to help this dude. his dad is a cfa man. and hes a friend of one of my rich friends. so i figure **** it. i’ll pass down some knowledge. could be a rich dude. rich ppl only have rich friends right.

Not really. My parents are wall street CEO’s… But most of my friends make sandwiches, know what I’m saying? I never applied “required criteria” to people to make friends with. Just sort of made friends with the people that were around me that did similar things I wanted to do. Which is entirely opportunistic - and dating is the exact same. 

Whether you focus on one gal, or multiple, is besides the point. Teach your bro to learn to have a good time around women rather than try to sleep with every chick he meets. It’s the whole “when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change” mentality, but totally works with attraction. So many times people who struggle to get laid are struggling because that’s all they care about - but when you start learning to actually have a good time around a woman and literally just be her friend, you’d be amazed at how easily she’ll want to sleep with you.

Not to come off as misogynist there - that’s not my intention. Just trying to shine a light on that fact that meeting people is A) easy and B) opportunity is likely knocking in peoples faces every day but they don’t recognize it. For what it’s worth, I love dating and building feelings with one gal. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

i think when ur younger, your friends can vary. but as you age. your friends are basically a representation of who you are as a person. so choose wisely.

women are flakers. which is why you have to come up with high volume. plus its a more efficent use of your time.

i am currently in that stage where i am focused on 1 girl. its nice to have someone to talk to when yo u are down. i even told him that. but i told him to say that, is kind of gay. anyways its kind of like investing right. when u dont kno what ur doing, diversify, but if you feel you have a good opp. you go all in.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Black Swan wrote:

I didn’t have time to try to pull the data sets today so I just set the marginal tax rate chart as transparent and aligned the X-axis.

No photo description available.

labour union density peaked in 1954 and started a long decline from there. so this is also a large part of the equation. union membership is so marginal today that they have difficulty arguing for economic concessions. considering we can’t do much to rebuild labour unions, taxation is really the only lever we can pull to bring about some equality between capital and labour.

Make sure you say no homo after making a statement like that. You straight up said what you said was kind of gay, and this could be interpreted as you trying to say you’re actually gay. It is particularly dangerous, as it seems based on your description, that he is capable of physically overpowering you. 

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

labour union density peaked in 1954 and started a long decline from there. so this is also a large part of the equation. union membership is so marginal today that they have difficulty arguing for economic concessions. considering we can’t do much to rebuild labour unions, taxation is really the only lever we can pull to bring about some equality between capital and labour.

So, what you’re saying is that me attempting to argue that ‘TDE’ is a myth and non existent because of the correlation between lower taxes and accelerating inequality is simply just a “rationalization” where as in all actuality the exogenous causal relationship is undiscoverable and not actually there. 

I can live with that I guess. Which just takes us full circle back to what ohai mentioned “it works sometimes for some and not sometimes for some”.

On second thought, let’s not get into economics debates, tis a silly science anyways.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

I don’t see why income inequality is a problem. Leave the money in the hands of people who know how to generate value. You give it to a idiots and they will spend it on indulgences, useless degrees, and destroy capital. If you have 2 countries and you leave money in the hands of the best and brightest and one where you take away from them and give it to low income people to spend… doesn’t take a genius to see how competitive each nation will be in the next 10, 20, 100 years.

Some of the wealthy’s spending will trickle down but even if it’s a tiny amount, no one is entitled to anything anyways.

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

I thought you wanted to Make America Great Again, Atlas Shrugged and all that?  Maybe a start would be the policies that were in place during that period (90% marginal tax rate).

History provides some pretty compelling counterexamples to ”wealth inequality not being a problem.”  Not to mention the greatest progress in the nation came during the periods of highest marginal tax rates and middle class expansion.  It’s no surprise that a vibrant and mobile middle class is a better recipe for growth and productivity than a few feudal lords seeking rent.  The whole line about people who know how to allocate capital (McKenzie Bezos $37B for banging a rich dude) vs those that don’t is borderline retarded (borderline to be polite).  Putting 25% of the nation’s wealth in the hands of 0.1% to create a caste system doesn’t achieve anything and a ramping deficit and aging infrastructure (coincidentally built in the 50’s and 60’s) argue against the current system.  A large part of the population could be leveraged more efficiently if assets were more efficiently allocated.  

Lastly, this is silly.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

CEO10K-DAY wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

labour union density peaked in 1954 and started a long decline from there. so this is also a large part of the equation. union membership is so marginal today that they have difficulty arguing for economic concessions. considering we can’t do much to rebuild labour unions, taxation is really the only lever we can pull to bring about some equality between capital and labour.

So, what you’re saying is that me attempting to argue that ‘TDE’ is a myth and non existent because of the correlation between lower taxes and accelerating inequality is simply just a “rationalization” where as in all actuality the exogenous causal relationship is undiscoverable and not actually there. 

I can live with that I guess. Which just takes us full circle back to what ohai mentioned “it works sometimes for some and not sometimes for some”.

On second thought, let’s not get into economics debates, tis a silly science anyways.

That’s not what he said at all.  He basically said there are multiple factors and labor unions are one of them.  Since there’s not a way to control that factor effectively at this stage, that would leave marginal taxes as the other effective mechanism.  Sheesh.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Agree with bs. Too little capital for the Poors will make them unproductive and dumb.

There needs to be competition so that the best are at the top!

lastly rich people are more likely to be traitors. They’ll move wherever it’s convenient for them and take the money. I kind of like how China can strip you of everything! Sometimes you need punish traitors to deter future traitors.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Black Swan wrote:

CEO10K-DAY wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

labour union density peaked in 1954 and started a long decline from there. so this is also a large part of the equation. union membership is so marginal today that they have difficulty arguing for economic concessions. considering we can’t do much to rebuild labour unions, taxation is really the only lever we can pull to bring about some equality between capital and labour.

So, what you’re saying is that me attempting to argue that ‘TDE’ is a myth and non existent because of the correlation between lower taxes and accelerating inequality is simply just a “rationalization” where as in all actuality the exogenous causal relationship is undiscoverable and not actually there. 

I can live with that I guess. Which just takes us full circle back to what ohai mentioned “it works sometimes for some and not sometimes for some”.

On second thought, let’s not get into economics debates, tis a silly science anyways.

That’s not what he said at all.  He basically said there are multiple factors and labor unions are one of them.  Since there’s not a way to control that factor effectively at this stage, that would leave marginal taxes as the other effective mechanism.  Sheesh.

Okay okay. I see what you mean. But like. We’re still friends right? 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

hpracing007 wrote:

I don’t see why income inequality is a problem. Leave the money in the hands of people who know how to generate value. You give it to a idiots and they will spend it on indulgences, useless degrees, and destroy capital. If you have 2 countries and you leave money in the hands of the best and brightest and one where you take away from them and give it to low income people to spend… doesn’t take a genius to see how competitive each nation will be in the next 10, 20, 100 years.

Some of the wealthy’s spending will trickle down but even if it’s a tiny amount, no one is entitled to anything anyways.

Lmao, my dude over here thinking that rich people = automatically smart.

Let’s take a look at Mr. President. Managed to bankrupt casinos and is still rich because his daddy committed tax fraud to bail his son out.

Entrenched wealth and benefits does not equal effective allocation.

It’s bull**** that the best indicator of your adult socioeconomic standing is what your childhood was like. Not your intelligence/work ethic, but wether or not your parents are loaded.