Trickle Down Economics is Misunderstood and Straw-Manned

[TomC]

I consider this a goalpost type argument.

Of course lowering taxes creates jobs. The important factor is what the ratio is.

The promise of trickle-down is that the job creation will grow the economy enough to cover the costs of the tax breaks. The reality is that we get nothing like that much economic growth, trickle-down policies end up either cutting government services or moving the tax bite down the income range. It's been an abject failure every time it's been tried.

One of the standard definitions of insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result. That's where trickle-down economics is by now. (Of course, they're not actually insane, but rather it's a cover for what they really want--lower taxes with no regard for the consequences.)

Lowering corporate taxes has created billionaires who are looking to stake out their territory in space and develop their monopoly even further there.

You are looking at it backwards. Pretty soon, civilians will be able to go to space for a reasonable fee. It will become very common in a decade or two. Wouldn't have happened without rich people having the capital to start it. Trickle down.

You say this as though it's a benefit to Mankind or something. It's not.

It's more like a way for the wealthy elites to insulate themselves from the disastrous consequences of what they're doing to Mankind and Earth.

Honestly, outside of scientific exploration, "man in space" looks more like a cancer metatacizing than growth. And machines are far more capable of scientific exploration than humans.
[/derail]

Tom

 

[SigmatheZeta]

You are all wrong. The billionaires are effectively an aristocratic class with political power commensurate with a government. You get to vote on one of them and not the other, but a high degree of power is a high degree of power, any way you slice it.

I like the whole voting concept, though, tbh.

 

[TomC]

You get to vote on one of them and not the other,

We get to vote on the politicians supported by the rich. But only them.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

You get to vote on one of them and not the other,

We get to vote on the politicians supported by the rich. But only them.
Tom

You all should have voted for Joe Exotic back in 2016 - this would have all been fixed by now.

 

[TomC]

You get to vote on one of them and not the other,

We get to vote on the politicians supported by the rich. But only them.
Tom

You all should have voted for Joe Exotic back in 2016 - this would have all been fixed by now.

I get the joke.

But, honestly, I felt it was my patriotic duty to support a centrist with clout. Even here in bright red Trumpistan, knowing that my vote wouldn't count in the EC.
Tom

 

[Toni]

You are all wrong. The billionaires are effectively an aristocratic class with political power commensurate with a government. You get to vote on one of them and not the other, but a high degree of power is a high degree of power, any way you slice it.

I like the whole voting concept, though, tbh.

This is what I was getting at—I think that ceding billionaires the ability to engage in space ….commerce would only enhance their powers, which is the point, I believe.

 

[Patooka]

But, honestly, I felt it was my patriotic duty to support a centrist with clout. Even here in bright red Trumpistan, knowing that my vote wouldn't count in the EC.
Tom

My attitude is that I like complaining and if I don't vote, I forfeit my right to bitch. And to go to your original post, politicians aren't just supported by the rich. The rich worries them, people who don't vote for them are a concern but what terrifies a politician to their very soul is the person who won't vote for them anymore.

This is what I was getting at—I think that ceding billionaires the ability to engage in space ….commerce would only enhance their powers, which is the point, I believe.

When I first saw Fight Club, I thought the narrator was being satirical discussing the Microsoft Galaxy and Planet Starbucks. Or Red Dwarf being over the top causing a whole bunch of stars to go supernova to write in the sky "Drink Coke". Shows how much I know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I consider this a goalpost type argument.

Of course lowering taxes creates jobs. The important factor is what the ratio is.

The promise of trickle-down is that the job creation will grow the economy enough to cover the costs of the tax breaks. The reality is that we get nothing like that much economic growth, trickle-down policies end up either cutting government services or moving the tax bite down the income range. It's been an abject failure every time it's been tried.

One of the standard definitions of insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result. That's where trickle-down economics is by now. (Of course, they're not actually insane, but rather it's a cover for what they really want--lower taxes with no regard for the consequences.)

Lowering corporate taxes has created billionaires who are looking to stake out their territory in space and develop their monopoly even further there.

You are looking at it backwards. Pretty soon, civilians will be able to go to space for a reasonable fee. It will become very common in a decade or two. Wouldn't have happened without rich people having the capital to start it. Trickle down.

Wouldn't have happened without Sputnik and NASA - both publicly funded ventures.

And NASA lost ships and crews. It is going to happen to these space ventures which also seems to be terribly off-topic to "trickle-down" which was a BS claim that if you give more money to wealthy people, it'll trickl...


... hey wait. Trickle means very slowly. It has been very slow. Maybe the term is right, it was just used improperly.

 

[TomC]

Or Red Dwarf being over the top causing a whole bunch of stars to go supernova to write in the sky "Drink

Ha ha ha!

There is a sci-fi story from the 50s or early 60s that predicted this, sort of. The author, IIRC, was C.M. Kornbluth and the story was called "The Marching Morons".

Kornbluth was a master of near future dystopian societies.

In the story, the nighttime sky was dominated by a batch of blazing geosynchronous satellites that spelled out "Drink Pepsi".

I think Kornbluth is long dead. But I'm sure he would have had a heyday in the modern internet dominated world. A little scary.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I consider this a goalpost type argument.

Of course lowering taxes creates jobs. The important factor is what the ratio is.

The promise of trickle-down is that the job creation will grow the economy enough to cover the costs of the tax breaks. The reality is that we get nothing like that much economic growth, trickle-down policies end up either cutting government services or moving the tax bite down the income range. It's been an abject failure every time it's been tried.

One of the standard definitions of insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result. That's where trickle-down economics is by now. (Of course, they're not actually insane, but rather it's a cover for what they really want--lower taxes with no regard for the consequences.)

Lowering corporate taxes has created billionaires who are looking to stake out their territory in space and develop their monopoly even further there.

You are looking at it backwards. Pretty soon, civilians will be able to go to space for a reasonable fee. It will become very common in a decade or two. Wouldn't have happened without rich people having the capital to start it. Trickle down.

Wouldn't have happened without Sputnik and NASA - both publicly funded ventures.

And NASA lost ships and crews. It is going to happen to these space ventures which also seems to be terribly off-topic to "trickle-down" which was a BS claim that if you give more money to wealthy people, it'll trickl...


... hey wait. Trickle means very slowly. It has been very slow. Maybe the term is right, it was just used improperly.

Just wanted to say, as a reminder: NASA is us: you, me, all Americans abs to some extend, the entire world’s contribution. The lives lost through NASA’s missions were American lives. The fruits of all these labors should not go to billionaires who make their fortunes by exploiting tax codes they paid for (at the expense of education, health care, clean air and water, infrastructure, etc,) and by exploiting their workers. I’m financially comfortable enough in my middle class retirement that I’m not talking about an armed revolution but I darn well am talking about significant restructuring of tax laws and overhaul or at least a reevaluation if the changes in laws in the 90’s and beyond that that have enabled privateers to take advantage of tax payer supported programs and discoveries in order to gain an even more obscene level of profit—which will not make their penises or their hearts any larger or more functional.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

You get to vote on one of them and not the other,

We get to vote on the politicians supported by the rich. But only them.
Tom

That, too. In fact, if you spend a while listening to Corey Doctorow, you will start having an idea of exactly how much power they have, at this point.

It's not all that much worse than the legitimate government for being invasive, but it still amounts to being ruled by an aristocratic ruling class. I am not impressed with it. We have done this at other times in history, and it always ends in long-overdue reforms or revolutions.

 

[Jarhyn]

You get to vote on one of them and not the other,

We get to vote on the politicians supported by the rich. But only them.
Tom

That, too. In fact, if you spend a while listening to Corey Doctorow, you will start having an idea of exactly how much power they have, at this point.

It's not all that much worse than the legitimate government for being invasive, but it still amounts to being ruled by an aristocratic ruling class. I am not impressed with it. We have done this at other times in history, and it always ends in long-overdue reforms or revolutions.

My biggest problem is that the world cannot survive the kinds of wars that will be waged in such revolutions. We became too large, have to much power to, to seek power over.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

You get to vote on one of them and not the other,

We get to vote on the politicians supported by the rich. But only them.
Tom

That, too. In fact, if you spend a while listening to Corey Doctorow, you will start having an idea of exactly how much power they have, at this point.

It's not all that much worse than the legitimate government for being invasive, but it still amounts to being ruled by an aristocratic ruling class. I am not impressed with it. We have done this at other times in history, and it always ends in long-overdue reforms or revolutions.

My biggest problem is that the world cannot survive the kinds of wars that will be waged in such revolutions. We became too large, have to much power to, to seek power over.

*wing-shrugs* It never could. Those wars have always caused us ruin and grief. They usually lead to replacing one dictator with another.

The Scandinavians did this cool idea of just reforming their governments so that nobody had to die in a revolution or something similarly atrocious, and most of them seem to be happy with the idea.

 

[TomC]

You get to vote on one of them and not the other,

We get to vote on the politicians supported by the rich. But only them.
Tom

That, too. In fact, if you spend a while listening to Corey Doctorow, you will start having an idea of exactly how much power they have, at this point.

It's not all that much worse than the legitimate government for being invasive, but it still amounts to being ruled by an aristocratic ruling class. I am not impressed with it. We have done this at other times in history, and it always ends in long-overdue reforms or revolutions.

My biggest problem is that the world cannot survive the kinds of wars that will be waged in such revolutions. We became too large, have to much power to, to seek power over.

Pretty much this.
I fully expect WWIII during this century. I used to think that the flash point would be Israel. Now I think the USA more likely.

The Family of Humanity doesn't have the margins for survival that we had as recently as WWII. From the economy to the biosphere, we're already teetering on the brink of disaster.

I'm glad I'm old. I feel bad for the kids.
Tom

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Whenever the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble is spewed out, by Blues or Reds, it's wrong -- whether it's from the "trickle-down" dogmatists, or from the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump China-bashers.

The taxes have to be increased in order to reduce the federal deficits, which are too high. If we must do the spending, then the taxes have to be increased in order to pay for it. Regardless whether it means fewer jobs. There is no reason to "create jobs" artificially by reducing the tax revenue needed to pay for the budget.

The only legitimate reason to reduce taxes is that we don't need so much revenue to pay for the programs.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Whenever the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble is spewed out, by Blues or Reds, it's wrong -- whether it's from the "trickle-down" dogmatists, or from the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump China-bashers.

The taxes have to be increased in order to reduce the federal deficits, which are too high. If we must do the spending, then the taxes have to be increased in order to pay for it. Regardless whether it means fewer jobs. There is no reason to "create jobs" artificially by reducing the tax revenue needed to pay for the budget.

The only legitimate reason to reduce taxes is that we don't need so much revenue to pay for the programs.

We have to pay for all this stuff, eventually. The conservatives are hopeful that they will able to get away with declaring "financial emergency" and stripping out the government, but that's exactly what they did during the "Sequester Fester" during the early 2010's. Within a year, we had street protests starting. First, the Occupy people, then Black Lives Matter.

A revolution is not going to happen in this country until the people have actually felt pain, but when they do, I am going to say "I told you so" because I told you so.

I am not going to be doing the revolution, though. I am contented, and my mortgage is paid.

I only went to the Black Lives Matter protest because fucking with the police for a day was incredibly entertaining.

 

[TomC]

I only went to the Black Lives Matter protest because fucking with the police for a day was incredibly entertaining.

That's so you.
Tom

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I only went to the Black Lives Matter protest because fucking with the police for a day was incredibly entertaining.

That's so you.
Tom

Thank you!

 

[Jarhyn]

You get to vote on one of them and not the other,

We get to vote on the politicians supported by the rich. But only them.
Tom

That, too. In fact, if you spend a while listening to Corey Doctorow, you will start having an idea of exactly how much power they have, at this point.

It's not all that much worse than the legitimate government for being invasive, but it still amounts to being ruled by an aristocratic ruling class. I am not impressed with it. We have done this at other times in history, and it always ends in long-overdue reforms or revolutions.

My biggest problem is that the world cannot survive the kinds of wars that will be waged in such revolutions. We became too large, have to much power to, to seek power over.

*wing-shrugs* It never could. Those wars have always caused us ruin and grief. They usually lead to replacing one dictator with another.

The Scandinavians did this cool idea of just reforming their governments so that nobody had to die in a revolution or something similarly atrocious, and most of them seem to be happy with the idea.

The problem is that the next war will be fought, waged, and started in an age of High Magic, and the only possible outcome for any party as recognized by all will be "who is 'king' of the crater".

And in America, it will have to be a war. We gave Bad Faith too much leash.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Billionaires do not really benefit from the most disadvantages Americans continuously failing to fully get their shit together. It is not a win/lose scenario to fight back against inequality. If a large percent of people are living on meager wages, it is probable that they are not really making the most efficient use of either their time or their energy or their talents. Even the wealthiest Americans do not gain by such waste. The question is only a matter of what investments could most efficiently stimulate growth among those that remain economically disadvantaged.

Imagine you're a one-percenter, already consuming about as much as you can. What's the marginal utility of additional swimming pools vs a set of policies and institutions which preserve your status? You gain nothing from a more productive economy, but stand to lose advantage and power from a more equal distribution.

Unfortunately, social status is zero-sum and that's what those at the top tend to value. So it's unsurprising if they continue to buy failed policies which work for them.