Nanker Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I read this book a few years ago. I highly recommend it. As a college Junior in Economics 101 in an Economics department led by Dick Armey I bought in to the whole trickle down thing. Sounds great on paper. After observing econimics in action for the last 30+ years I've determined it to be BS. When a rich persons gets a windfall, the LAST thing they wanna do is hire someone. So the schmucks never get a piece of it. When a poor or middle class person gets a windfall, they spend it which stimulates the economy. So my theory is trickle up Economics would work a lot better. People spending more creates new demand creating new jobs, Not the other way around. So I should fire my cleaning lady and lawn service now to conform to your concept? What about remodeling my home, or buying a car, or a boat? Think of the money I could save! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/shocker-real-gordon-gekko-just-endorsed-bernie-sanders ELECTION 2016 Shocker: The Real Gordon Gekko Just Endorsed Bernie Sanders The model for the ultimate Wall Street symbol of greed and corporate evil says Sanders would get the economy moving best. By Kali Holloway / AlterNet March 10, 2016 Print 268 COMMENTS Photo Credit: 20th Century Fox Gordon "Greed is Good" Gekko remains an enduring symbol of Wall Street greed, corporate lawlessness and 1980s excess. That’s why it’s pretty surprising that the guy on whom the Wall Street character was based—former corporate raider Asher Edelman—says Bernie Sanders is the strongest presidential candidate. Appearing on CNBC’s "Fast Money" this morning, Edelman responded immediately when asked who he thought the best candidate for the economy would be. “Bernie Sanders,” Edelman said, without missing a beat. “No question.” ADVERTISING Asked to elaborate, Edelman stated his case. “Well, I think it’s quite simple," he began. "If you look at something called ‘velocity of money’—you guys know what that is, I presume—that means how much gets spent and turns around. When you have the top one percent getting money, they spend five, 10 percent of what they earn. When you have the lower end of the economy getting money, they spend 100, or 110 percent of what they earn. As you’ve had a transfer of wealth to the top, and a transfer of income to the top, you have a shrinking consumer base, basically, and you have a shrinking velocity of money. Bernie is the only person out there who I think is talking at all about both fiscal stimulation and banking rules that will get the banks to begin to generate lending again as opposed to speculation. So from an economic point of view, it’s straightforward.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I read this book a few years ago. I highly recommend it. As a college Junior in Economics 101 in an Economics department led by Dick Armey I bought in to the whole trickle down thing. Sounds great on paper. After observing econimics in action for the last 30+ years I've determined it to be BS. When a rich persons gets a windfall, the LAST thing they wanna do is hire someone. So the schmucks never get a piece of it. When a poor or middle class person gets a windfall, they spend it which stimulates the economy. So my theory is trickle up Economics would work a lot better. People spending more creates new demand creating new jobs, Not the other way around. Funny how people are dusting off criticisms of supply side theories, when we're 7 years into an economy underlined by the largest tax increases in a generation. Are you all ready for the Summer of Recovery Tour #8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/shocker-real-gordon-gekko-just-endorsed-bernie-sanders ELECTION 2016 Shocker: The Real Gordon Gekko Just Endorsed Bernie Sanders The model for the ultimate Wall Street symbol of greed and corporate evil says Sanders would get the economy moving best. By Kali Holloway / AlterNet March 10, 2016 Now I see why Edelman resorted to crime to because he's a dumbass. The economy doesn't grow based on percentages it grows based on dollars fed to it. Let me give you an example Someone making $10,000,000 a year puts 5% of their income into the economy through consumerism. Someone else making $50,000 puts 50% into the economy through consumerism. Who has helped the economy more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Now I see why Edelman resorted to crime to because he's a dumbass. The economy doesn't grow based on percentages it grows based on dollars fed to it. Let me give you an example Someone making $10,000,000 a year puts 5% of their income into the economy through consumerism. Someone else making $50,000 puts 50% into the economy through consumerism. Who has helped the economy more? How did you reach the 50% figure for the $50k a year person? That seems low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 How did you reach the 50% figure for the $50k a year person? That seems low He's using arbitrary numbers to demonstrate a point, you dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 He's using arbitrary numbers to demonstrate a point, you dumbass. Yes, arbitrarily wrong numbers poop eater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yes, arbitrarily wrong numbers poop eater And yet, that makes absolutely no difference to his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 And yet, that makes absolutely no difference to his point. Ummmm....can you restate your argument with an insult included? Just not in mood to be even slightly civil today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 How did you reach the 50% figure for the $50k a year person? That seems low Ok let's use 100%. My point still stands right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Ok let's use 100%. My point still stands right? Maybe, but since there will be a whole bunch more people at the $50,000 level, you have to look at that fact. If you take the larger number of people at 50k, then the help to the economy is greater if you help them. Can I? Just once? Boom!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Ummmm....can you restate your argument with an insult included? Just not in mood to be even slightly civil today Sure: you're a dumbass. That's my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) US manufacturing output is at an all time high. The problem is not that we're not making anything, the problem is that Mr. Roboto is taking many of the jobs in manufacturing. No one in the US wants to make most of what is made in China. I think unionization led to a lot of this. The unintended consequences of holding companies hostage to earn 20$ on an assembly line and demanding extremely generous benefits, just priced yourself out of employment. Companies couldn't afford the excessive labor costs to remain competitive Edit, and my prediction is that these idiots demanding $15per hour in fast food are going to kill their own jobs by increased automation Edited March 11, 2016 by drinkTHEkoolaid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I think unionization led to a lot of this. The unintended consequences of holding companies hostage to earn 20$ on an assembly line and demanding extremely generous benefits, just priced yourself out of employment. Companies couldn't afford the excessive labor costs to remain competitive Edit, and my prediction is that these idiots demanding $15per hour in fast food are going to kill their own jobs by increased automation Hey, come on, I already addressed this point. Using a Conservative think tank to show it http://www.cato.org/blog/trump-wrong-america-makes-tons-stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Maybe, but since there will be a whole bunch more people at the $50,000 level, you have to look at that fact. If you take the larger number of people at 50k, then the help to the economy is greater if you help them. Can I? Just once? Boom!!! Where did he come up with the numbers that the lower end of the economy spends 100-100% of their income? What is does he mean by the lower end of the economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I read this book a few years ago. I highly recommend it. As a college Junior in Economics 101 in an Economics department led by Dick Armey I bought in to the whole trickle down thing. Sounds great on paper. After observing econimics in action for the last 30+ years I've determined it to be BS. When a rich persons gets a windfall, the LAST thing they wanna do is hire someone. So the schmucks never get a piece of it. When a poor or middle class person gets a windfall, they spend it which stimulates the economy. So my theory is trickle up Economics would work a lot better. People spending more creates new demand creating new jobs, Not the other way around. please go on. I want to know more about trickle up. Mostly because I am out of drugs and have brain cells that need to be published. Humor me. Because I want to know about how it could work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 please go on. I want to know more about trickle up. Mostly because I am out of drugs and have brain cells that need to be published. Humor me. Because I want to know about how it could workDrink some antifreeze, lots of it! Like right now, go do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Someone didn't pay attention in Economics class... Let's throw out science and go with gut feelings. It's much better. Why does the left so consistently follow their emotions over logic and reason? "Regardless of Kansas' economic performance, Mr. Frank's main thesis--that people who are struggling economically should be voting as liberals, not conservatives--is dubious. As an editorial in the Wichita Eagle observed: "There's nothing wrong with many Kansans wanting to hold onto a little more of their paychecks . . . or preferring that when they need help it comes from their family, their church, their community--not an intrusive federal government." But what's really astounding is that Mr. Frank, who offers little in the way of economic data, would base his argument on such blatant falsehoods. To Mr. Frank's liberal prejudices, something may be the matter with Kansas, but it sure isn't its economy." By the reviews, most (unbiased) people can't get through the first chapter without choking on the liberal propaganda. Maybe if the author had presented data instead of rhetoric... Basically, his argument is: "why would people not vote to give themselves free #$@!?" Actually, I got an A. I think you have the premise of the book wrong. It's not vote to get free ****, it's vote to stop giving advantages to people who can buy politicians and can get law passed to benefit them. People in Kansas (and elsewhere) vote for the trickle down types, yet the jobs never show up, yet they keep voting that way. Pretty much what Morning Joe said. Did you read the book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Actually, I got an A. I think you have the premise of the book wrong. It's not vote to get free ****, it's vote to stop giving advantages to people who can buy politicians and can get law passed to benefit them. People in Kansas (and elsewhere) vote for the trickle down types, yet the jobs never show up, yet they keep voting that way. Pretty much what Morning Joe said. Did you read the book? What about Ohio, Delaware? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Where did he come up with the numbers that the lower end of the economy spends 100-100% of their income? People spending beyond their means. Borrowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts