1
   

Trickle down economics

 
 
Elmud
 
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 12:19 am
I always thought that Reagans theory of trickle down economics made sense. After all, we need the wealthy to provide jobs for the middle and under class. So why shouldn't the government provide advantages for the large corporations . But, in the light of todays economic nightmare, maybe that theory provided an open checkbook for those who would take advantage of all the advantages they have been given. Like spending over a million dollars to remodel an office. Like anything else, nothing is as cut and dry as it seems. As long as greed and opulence exists, even the best ideas will be corrupted. Now, these fellas want to be bailed out by the government. I guess I would have to say that if they want to be bailed out, they need to agree to work for minimum wage for awhile so they can truly understand what their extravigant lifestyles have cost.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,585 • Replies: 35
No top replies

 
WithoutReason
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 12:58 am
@Elmud,
Economic nightmare or not, the only thing corporations have always done is take advantage of anything that will allow them to make a profit, including the average person. Nothing comes before a profit to a corporation. The amount of suffering they have caused to achieve their profits is reprehensible. I just don't understand how these guys that run them can sleep at night knowing the imprints they have left on American society and the rest of the world. You would have to completely shut off any conscience you might have in order to run a corporation. I suppose that enough money can motivate just about anyone to do anything though.

I am glad you appear to be willing to give this a second look Smile. Reconsidering the ideas we have always taken for granted is the only way our world will ever truly become a better place for all.
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 01:59 pm
@Elmud,
I always thought of trickle down economics as vacuum theory economics. The rich suck the money out of the pockets of the less fortunate, and then excess coins float down to the consumers, which in turn are sucked up by the same vacuum cleaner. Eventually the vacuum has been run for too long with the bag full and the machine quits working.
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 12:16 am
@Theaetetus,
Here's how I understand it...

... give tax incentives, favorable rulings on zoning and other means of "encouragement" to those who hold the wealth and they'll, in turn, invest in new ventures, lines of production and new business. The result is that you'll end up producing more, putting more people to work and pumping out more goods and services across the board.

The problem I see with this seems obvious if you look at the number of filthy rich that has blossomed at an increasing rate. What happens when they don't invest their money back into the economy and instead; hoard it or invest it elsewhere.

I don't hold any real hope for this; it makes about as much sense as capitalism itself does. But for the time-being, it's what I have to deal with.

Thanks
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:37 pm
@Khethil,
If by trickle down economics we mean Raeganomics, then yes, that's a disaster. I could never decide if those 'conservatives' were stupid, hypocrites or trying to 'starve the beast.' Small government is great, but tax cuts alone don't bring that about...have to cut spending, including military spending.
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:44 pm
@Elmud,
The first thing that needs to be cut is military spending. There is not a worse way to spend money if a country wishes to downsize its government.
0 Replies
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:44 pm
@BrightNoon,
Have to cut spending and raise tax revenues. The US is in a real crisis: and I do not mean the current recession. I'm talking about our national debt. We have to pay this stuff of before our nation is utterly bankrupt.

It's almost funny: the "small government" politicians tend to be those who grow the government; they do this through military spending. Yet, so many conservatives buy the implicit lie that somehow the military is not part of or a function of the government.

As for corporations: let's revisit the turn of the century decision to give corporations personhood. One of the single most destructive legal shifts in our nation's history.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:58 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
I think the debt crisis is now D.T. If things were still 'working' (I use that term loosely) we would be lucky to enact the reform needed to prevent insolvency in the next decade or two. Now we're going to have to finance the largest budget deficit in history while tax revenues are collapsing, and at a time when every major country in the world is issuing record numbers of their own bonds. There isn't enough money to keep this debt-laden system going.
0 Replies
 
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 09:16 am
@WithoutReason,
WithoutReason wrote:
Economic nightmare or not, the only thing corporations have always done is take advantage of anything that will allow them to make a profit, including the average person. Nothing comes before a profit to a corporation. The amount of suffering they have caused to achieve their profits is reprehensible. I just don't understand how these guys that run them can sleep at night knowing the imprints they have left on American society and the rest of the world. You would have to completely shut off any conscience you might have in order to run a corporation. I suppose that enough money can motivate just about anyone to do anything though.

I am glad you appear to be willing to give this a second look Smile. Reconsidering the ideas we have always taken for granted is the only way our world will ever truly become a better place for all.
Hmm. I was just thinking, do ya think Reagan might have read a little on Confucianism or a little Hinduism? Seems kind of like a caste system mentality of sorts.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 03:03 pm
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
Hmm. I was just thinking, do ya think Reagan might have read a little on Confucianism or a little Hinduism? Seems kind of like a caste system mentality of sorts.


Ugh, please do not tarnish the East with Raygun's name like that

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

That is all I have to say
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 04:07 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare wrote:
Ugh, please do not tarnish the East with Raygun's name like that

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

That is all I have to say

Lol Okay. I see yer pernt.
0 Replies
 
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:43 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare wrote:
Ugh, please do not tarnish the East with Raygun's name like that

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

That is all I have to say

Was thinking about how Reagan might have thought in regard to the "lower orders". Reminded me of Confucianism.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 12:23 am
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
Was thinking about how Reagan might have thought in regard to the "lower orders". Reminded me of Confucianism.


I'm going to read more about historical Confucian economics (like way back) when I have more macro policy down ... at a glance it looks more Keynesian than anything else. I kind of resent the comparison to Raygun lol
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 05:18 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare wrote:
I'm going to read more about historical Confucian economics (like way back) when I have more macro policy down ... at a glance it looks more Keynesian than anything else. I kind of resent the comparison to Raygun lol

Check out a few neo Confucianist quotes, or women and Confucianism. It may shed a little more light on the subject.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 08:09 pm
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
Check out a few neo Confucianist quotes, or women and Confucianism. It may shed a little more light on the subject.


This is kind of vague ... can you explain what you mean? I don't see the connection between 'Reaganomics' and Confucian economics. As far as I know, pretty much every school of historical Chinese economics promoted some active government role in macro policy. Reaganomics was famous for doing next to nothing with respect to macro policy. They couldn't be further apart.
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 08:32 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare wrote:
This is kind of vague ... can you explain what you mean? I don't see the connection between 'Reaganomics' and Confucian economics. As far as I know, pretty much every school of historical Chinese economics promoted some active government role in macro policy. Reaganomics was famous for doing next to nothing with respect to macro policy. They couldn't be further apart.

Well, lets see. how do I put this. An economic mindset that is influenced by class distinctions. Does this make any sense? I hope so because to be honest, I would have to go back in time and try and remember all that I learned about Confucianism, and my reference material is long gone. I hope this makes some sense. If it does, clue me in too.:bigsmile:
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 08:34 pm
@Elmud,
Not to say that there are no similarities between Reaganomics and Confucian ideals, but the similarities seem to be that they both have to do with economics.

Remember, Confucius saw the farmer as the most important economic contributor to a society. Reagan saw the multi-billionaire as the most important economic contributor. Talk about a difference.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 09:57 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Elmud wrote:
Well, lets see. how do I put this. An economic mindset that is influenced by class distinctions. Does this make any sense? I hope so because to be honest, I would have to go back in time and try and remember all that I learned about Confucianism, and my reference material is long gone. I hope this makes some sense. If it does, clue me in too.:bigsmile:


But they had completely different ideas of class responsibilities. Pretty much every economic theory except for Marxism is influenced by some class distinctions, at least in a broad sense (i.e., firms, households, government might be considered 'classes' in a way, at least in the sense that they divide responsibilities sharply).

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Not to say that there are no similarities between Reaganomics and Confucian ideals, but the similarities seem to be that they both have to do with economics.

Remember, Confucius saw the farmer as the most important economic contributor to a society.
Reagan saw the multi-billionaire as the most important economic contributor. Talk about a difference.


Not exactly true; he believed in division of labor which put him at odds with the more agrarian-oriented Hsu Hsing and his followers.

Confucius was certainly what you'd call laissez-faire, in favor of low taxes and letting market determine allocation of resources in nearly all cases, he was not completely opposed to regulation in the loony way that Raygun was. Opposed to abusive monopoly for example. Raygun IIRC crippled a lot of antitrust legislation.

The overall philosophy of his economics differed vastly, too. One thing he said was: "百姓足,君孰與不足?百姓不足,君孰與足?" which is a pair of rhetorical questions that basically assert that a ruler who does not look out for the interests of the common people (百姓) is himself 'poor'. Raygun was either unconcerned with the bai xing, or didn't do a good job of showing it.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 10:07 pm
@odenskrigare,
He believed in a division of labor, but placed the farmer at the top of the list. The farmer cast being the most important to any society.

To call Confucius laissez-faire seems remarkably misleading as he was not completely opposed to regulation. His was not based on some abstract ideal, but instead based on practical concerns. What works.
0 Replies
 
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 10:07 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare wrote:


The overall philosophy of his economics differed vastly, too. One thing he said was: "百姓足,君孰與不足?百姓不足,君孰與足?" which is a pair of rhetorical questions that basically assert that a ruler who does not look out for the interests of the common people (百姓) is himself 'poor'. Raygun was either unconcerned with the bai xing, or didn't do a good job of showing it.

You paint a positive picture of Confucianism. I would not want to diminish or tarnish that picture. But, I just can't get this quote out of my head. "a woman ruler is like a hen crowing". Women and eunuchs were considered the hind end of the lower order. Regardless of how you paint the picture, I will always consider those two thoughts which shape my opinion of Confucianism.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Trickle down economics
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 07:24:49