Trickle Down Economics

>>972264
>government increases money supply
>interest rates lower
>companies attain more money
>Apple now has $1bill in cash.

>>972277
Just so I'm clear, you're saying the inflation cause by the deviation from the gold standard, combined with the fed keeping interest rates low, lead to the increased disparity between the 1% and the average Joe.

>>972287
I'm saying that Trickle Down Economics, for the most part, stops at companies and does not have a large effect on the individual.

maybe if we had a real capitalism it would trickle down

>>972296
How would we get real capitalism?
What would be necessary to change?

>>972300

complete seperation of government and economics

>>972296
>>972302
Then Trickle Down would be a thing in the first place, man. That's literally government interfering with economics.

>>972304
wouldn't*

>>972264
>le "share the wealth" image
People say that the trickle down theory is dead because its associated with Reagan, who was a republican, and republicans are cackling evil despots who really just miss the good old days of beating a slave in the south. So when you get this feeling that you deserve more of someone else's money because reasons you blame it on the most recent "Republican" economic strategy you've heard of, trickle down.

Trickle down is alive and well, as >>972277 points out, the government has been handing out free money since 2008 to stimulate the economy. So where is all that money now? In the pockets of too-big-to-fail now.

>bottoms
>skilless lazy sack of shits
>expecting income raise

I own my own business

The more I pay in taxes, the less I have to reinvest in my business.

Liberals think all businesses are holding billions in cash and the owner/ceo is making millions.

I don't know who started this "le trickle down meme", but the more bullshit I have to pay out, the fewer employees I can hire.

It still just amazes me that Walmart and McDonalds basically get free subsidies for shit that I have to budget for all year.

File: laffer curve.png (77KB, 800x504px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x504px

Trend in income has to do with globalization.

"Trickle down" economics are rock solid and its worked every time its tried.

Pic related. Lower tax rates can yield higher revenues if the rate is too high.

>>972341
So lower tax rates can accumulate more revenue than if the rate is too high... How do we know if it has passed that threshold?

>>972355

Hard to say. I personally believe its around 25% but its not really provable. Try lowering taxes and see what happens I guess.

You only need to make $79,500 to be in the top 20%. This infographic seems to imply only the rich get richer when that isn't true. It just shows that anybody who gets a STEM degree can be successful.

>>972293

exactly this.

Even if, the owners of capital suddenly get breaks, earn more, and are thus able to employ more and open more businesses, they are still gonna get paying the exact same shitty wages to their labor. All while their pockets just get fatter.

What it comes down to is that to alleviate American gaps, and pains, you have to help the middle class. They are the ones that spend, they are the ones that actually care about people.

File: wryyyyyyyyy.jpg (29KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x270px

>>972401
>you have to help the middle class. They are the ones that spend, they are the ones that actually care about people.
Says who?

What the fuck is the "middle class" anyway? Never have I seen a term be so abused as in American politics. Fuck. Americans have a god damned fetish for it, even though all it is is declaring some level of income the "right" amount that every god damned person "deserves" if they "work hard" (though the specifics of where this zone exists vary widely). And why the fuck is giving money to people who spend it willy nilly a good idea?
>"Muh spending drives eoconomy!"
No it fucking doesn't! Stop this shitty meme. Giving everyone a bunch of dollarydoos so they can spend them doesn't make everyone richer, it just devalues the currency because it doesn't actually put new goods or services on the market, it just fills the pockets of those looking to buy and thus the price goes up. Your wages will NEVER actually go up unless you make yourself more in demand. You will always get the same tiny slice of the overall pie.

Also where the fuck do you get this "muh middle class is the only ones who care about peoples bloo bloo!" bullshit? Are you a fuckin mind reader and you can actually tell all those rich bastards are really scrooges at heart? That must be why wealthy people are overwhelming liberal and why they tend to donate fuckloads higher percentages of their income to charities.

Or maybe it wasn't that you had any actual insight into the minds of wealthy people and you just want to cast them as a villain so you can feel better about stealing their money for "justice".

Fuck off.

Yes I am upset

If you end illegal mass immigration, income inequality will stop decreasing. Very simple. Taxes are not the solution

>>972355
A British study suggested that 48% is the peak, all rates included.

>>972264
trickle down economics died when the goddamned commies took over the trap in the 90's.

but it'll work in the future after the trap finishes doing what it was made to do.

>>972264
>"trickle down economics

just a boogeyman the left came up with to justify increase in taxes.

doesnt matter anymore anyway. the republicans were supposed to be low tax low spend, and dems high tax and high spend. but it never worked out that way. everyone is high spend.

the idea of trickle down economics works equally as much as it doesnt work. if the government didnt' take 1/3 of my income i would have another 80k to save and invest in new business or spend on a nicer car or house.

When you try to steal from rich people because they're rich they become hostile and then they screw you over.

This is elementary guys. Trickle down economics doesn't work when the rich capitalists are oppressed.

>>973054
>the idea of trickle down economics works equally as much as it doesnt work.
true, it takes a really long time for the trickle down effect to take effect. for the average person, not just a generation but several generations.
Standards of living improved in the early 20th century largely thanks to the riches created by capitalists during the industrial revolution.

>>972425
The middle class are mostly a bunch of retards who can make a decent wage with little to no skill. It's shrinking because skills are now needed and the average American was never some albatross of a worker.

That being said they are valuable as that's what keeps this country from being a gilded age piece of shit.

>>973065
you mean created by workers

>>972264
america has most of the global firms. so if you get companies that get bigger markets, and bigger funds, that doesn't mean that the average worker gets more money. it means that now there's more workers and more people buying

just because you exist doesn't mean you get a cut

/biz/ has become worse than /pol/

gg, I'm out

>>972296
Didn't we have "real capitalism" in the early 1900s and before? Wealth disparity and work conditions were universally abysmal. I'm Republican and say this...

>>972304
Fucking this. Reaganomics are completely Keynesian. Injecting money into the economy with the hopes of stimulating it. It just injects it to the top instead of the bottom.

>>973067
>The middle class are mostly a bunch of retards

I take it you've never had the pleasure with working for anyone who would be considered lower class.
Some lower class people just aren't all that concerned with money, but the vast majority don't really have much higher critical thinking abilities or concept of money.

The people that do have traditionally been able to get middle class jobs.

You are correct, however, that from about 1940-1985 it was generally possible to get a decent paying job with no skill manual labor. That's not really the case anymore.

>>973899
See >>973827

/biz/ is entirely fully of randroids now. They pretend things like externalities and asymmetric information don't exist. They've completely convinced themselves that monopoly can ONLY form by government regulation. The idea that businesses could concentrate their power using anti-competitive behavior and take advantage of the consumer is completely foreign to them. Markets are apparently 100% efficient and cannot possibly fail.

>>973067
What do you consider middle class? Because 100k is still middle class by almost all standards, and most people making over 100k have IQs of at least 115.

>>972264
Corporate welfare-ism needs to fucking die. If socialism is bad then it's double-bad to apply it to businesses.

>>973058
>rich capitalists
>oppressed
>USA
Mate I don't think you know what country you're talking about.

>>972355
We can't know directly we can only infer.

but it works every time and is the core reason why Ireland is even a country today. They put one of the lowest corporate rates around and significant portions of the worlds money moves through that little shit hole now.

America is not competing with them in any way.

>>972425
Spending is one of Many drivers of the economy. In economics it is compared to idle savings. The problem you are hitting is the forced spending that occurs when interest rates are very low. Causing "investment" in relatively shitty things and financial engineering circle jerks.

>>973058
How is stopping trickle-down economic policy oppressing the rich? All it means is "stop giving entitlements to the rich thinking it'll benefit society as a whole". Corporate welfare needs to die.

>>972339
Please elaborate on these line items they get subsidised that you pay for; I'm interested in the SBO perspective. What kind of business?

>>972341
maybe I am missing something, but the thing I don't get is how do we know that the money will "trickle down"? I mean, a company exists to feed its owners and investors, right? so, if you give the company a tax break, what is their motivation to pay employees more, rather than just keeping that money in their pocket?

if you give money to a middle/underclass person, he/she (especially a she) will buy more goods and services with it. Usually stuff they need, like better food and healthcare.

if you give money to a rich person, by all accounts, they just invest it or save it. to my understanding, this is how the rich have been getting richer, while the poor have been getting poorer. Corporate profits have boomed, while wages have stagnated. Worker compensation, compared to the price of goods, has been dropping since the 70's. the trickling has stopped.

>>973039
and how is that going to work? poor people will shift from working shitty jobs to working even shittier jobs, that pay even less?

you have people so ravenously hungry for work and a decent life that they will sneak into a country, having no connections, barely able to communicate, leaving behind all family and comfort, and you want to kick these people out? this is the hardest of the hardcore! way more valuable than lazy fucks who just kick back and collect disability payments, or whatever welfare system they figured out how to game.

>>973054
you act like you aren't getting anything for that 1/3 income. hows that internet connection working? pretty nice thing the government invented for you, eh?

File: 1421561124164.jpg (27KB, 760x666px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 760x666px

Trickle Down Economics is a left wing pejorative. Some conservative economists espouse supply side economic views. The general belief is that lower taxes and barriers create supply side shocks and drive down prices, thereby spurring increased economic activity and growth, as well as a greater need for workers due to the increased output of firms. Moreover, the Laffer curve suggests that lower taxes can possibly produce greater government revenue.

>>974288
The problem with trying to write tax policy using the Laffer Curve is that you can't get anyone to agree where on the curve we currently are.

Remember that the point of the intervention in the economy by the government is to help people, not necessarily keep the economy going strong. If the economy is doing great but the average person's quality of life is flat or going down (as has been the case for the past few years) then it's the responsibility of the government to do something, hopefully that improves the average person's standard of living without affecting the momentum of the economy too much.

Companies buying each other's debt instead of investing it appropriately maybe

>>974288
All empirical results from when we have lowered taxes suggest otherwise.

>>973072
Da, comrade.

File: laffer-curve.jpg (77KB, 580x482px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 580x482px

>>974373
The Laffer curve has many shapes. Only the points on the x axis are certain.

>>974406
Revenues did not increase when Reagan or Bush cut taxes. The deficit only grew.

File: 1446672476197.jpg (68KB, 639x639px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 639x639px

>>973909

>Not mixing your money with the top dogs in U.S equity markets

This isn't your fathers era, these days expect to be poor unless you have use your saving to invest in stocks through mutual funds/index funds.

Just look how fucking awesome owning stock has been the last few years.

>>974429
Literally what does this have to do with the post I made?

Are you honestly implying that Keynesian economics by themselves, let alone geared toward the rich, is good for the economy?

1. Trickle down economics never worked.

2. It's human nature to hoard shit. It's a basic survival mechanism. The more money you have, the less likely you are to not have money in the future. See: investments

>>974412
The Laffer curve doesn't necessarily imply that taxes should be cut. If one derives a Laffer curve where the maximum revenue point is near 70%, as is the case in some studies, then dependent upon the current tax rate, one may increase taxes.

>>972264
The argument is that with lower tax rates and costs firms are able to produce more output, thereby increasing the supply of goods. In doing so a supply shock occurs and prices decrease, leading to more consumption and economic growth. Moreover, increased production will require more workers and thus less unemployment

Well i've more-or-less read through this thread and i think you guys don't see the bigger picture.

Mainly you come with the economic side of the question, but there's some of you who's still living the in the shadow of communism. But there is another factor never before have been so strong as it is now. Technology my friends.

When EVERYONE can produce ANYTHING, well there's no need for the droplets from no state, no corp, no god. That is going to be a brave new age.

Infact there was a prediction i cant find now, which stated that firearms cannot be controlled in 2020 in the states due to 3D printing. And it's just 4 years away.

>>974513
I'm arguing against people claiming we're currently on the right side, bro. Don't forget that Arthur Laffer conceptualized the curve as a way to justify Reagan's tax plan economically.

>>974529
You still have to have the money to won a 3D printer. Cornucopia technology will be lorded over the poor by the people with the initial capital to afford it for ages before it finally gets to everyone else. That is, of course, assuming we're anywhere near cornucopia tech, which we aren't.

>>974521
Or, alternatively in the real world, businesses just pocket the extra savings from lower taxes in the form of bigger profit margins. They have zero incentive whatsoever to reinvest the savings from tax cuts back into their business, and therefore your "supply side economics" violates the founding assumption of economic theory, which is that all economic actors are self-interested and rational.

To put it another way, your idea is retarded and you're retarded for thinking it's real.

>>975627
>They have zero incentive whatsoever to reinvest the savings from tax cuts back into their business

The incentive to reinvest is to make more money.

>>975634
Corporations are self-liquidating highly profitable divisions of theirs business just to boost quarterly earnings and please shareholders. Do you really think those same businesses would go out and launch massive reinvestment campaigns instead of doing the easy, more sure thing to do and just pocket the money?

Hell, they're even launching massive stock buybacks right without doing any reinvestment.

File: inflation-tax.jpg (157KB, 475x280px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 475x280px

One of the big problems with fiat money, the kind issued by governments and backed by nothing, is that it loses value over time. This shows up in everyday life as consumer price inflation, which can be thought of as an additional tax on the population. But the worst part is that investment gains are taxed, and many asset prices also go up faster with higher inflation rates. So price inflation results in a kind of double taxation on investors. It’s the world’s biggest tax scam.

>>975634
Only a certain portion of businesses do this, and most are just big corporations. The vast majority of US businesses are profit-maximizing firms, not Amazon. Everyone can't just keep pumping money into their business and expect to get more out of it. Many firms are, in fact, operating near or at their maximum potential.

>>975667
>Inflation is a hidden tax
Only if you're fucking economically illiterate. Everyone and their mothers knows inflation is a tax. Why do you think third world countries regularly experience hyper-inflation? This is such a basic concept known to literally everyone that I find it hilarious that you think you've cracked some sort of code.

As for your gold faggotry, which I assume is what your real point is, if you want to be able to exercise monetary policy and have capital freely flow, you have to have a floating currency. It's as simple as that. And if you understood the consequences of getting rid of either of those two factors, you'd realize how much you'd dislike being back under it. But you don't think that far, do you?