Trickle down economics

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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: 3,087 • Replies: 35

No top replies

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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

@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.

1 Reply

@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

@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 . 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.

1 Reply

@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

3 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare wrote:

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

That is all I have to say

Lol Okay. I see yer pernt.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare wrote:

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

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.

1 Reply

@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

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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:

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

2 Replies

@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

@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.

2 Replies

Trickle down economics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know