Doer
Well-Known Member
30 years....OMG. TD ended with Reagan. See control chart post Reagan.
More Than 500 Economists Sign Letter Against Minimum Wage Hike
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
trickle down did not end with reagan. his policies not only stayed in place but were expanded upon.
trickle down is nothing but failure.
Doer
Well-Known Member
I will stipulate that we have gone way past Reagan. So, don't try to argue with me. If you would like to partake in an adult discussion about when we think it did fail, how it failed, and how long it lasted....OK...
It was never in place...all made up as a slam..the reasons came and went, but the Party keeps all these powders dry. Just Politics in Politics and certainly not even real.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/
True to form, Barack Obama trotted out the phrase in a speech on December 4 in front of an adoring audience: “As the trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither.”
Never mind that the claim about the withering of spending on schools and infrastructure is simply false (as Russ Roberts shows here). Let’s focus on that horrible “ideology” of trickle-down.
Yeah, just made up as a political slogan when you were in the diaper days. Typical. Since it has no meaning it goes on forever. Obama can claim whatever. You can believe all you want.
I withdraw my assumption that you meant anything real by any of your comments on it.
It was never in place...all made up as a slam..the reasons came and went, but the Party keeps all these powders dry. Just Politics in Politics and certainly not even real.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/
True to form, Barack Obama trotted out the phrase in a speech on December 4 in front of an adoring audience: “As the trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither.”
Never mind that the claim about the withering of spending on schools and infrastructure is simply false (as Russ Roberts shows here). Let’s focus on that horrible “ideology” of trickle-down.
Yeah, just made up as a political slogan when you were in the diaper days. Typical. Since it has no meaning it goes on forever. Obama can claim whatever. You can believe all you want.
I withdraw my assumption that you meant anything real by any of your comments on it.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Why say "you guys" support? Don't you like me after all? Go back a few posts?
30 years....OMG. TD ended with Reagan. See control chart post Reagan.
It was something made up that never was any different than what is done now by all sides.
It did get ole Reagan in the corner, and had to defend the label. But, it was a dead slogan before he died.
Nothing has changed much since then.
These competing Economic Theories are no worse or better than Marxism.
It is why John F. Nash won the Nobel Prize in Economics. This superseded all other Theory...except in Politics, of course.
An American mathematician who won the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, along with John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten, for his development of the mathematical foundations of game theory. Nash Jr.'s research differentiated between cooperative and non-cooperative games. He also developed an equilibrium theory known as the Nash Equilibrium (of which the prisoner's dilemma is a well-known example).
Keynsian, Voodooian, Draconian, etc are done in. They don't recognize "make a bigger pie."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics‎
H.W. Bush derided Reagan's supply-side policies as "voodoo economics".
Do you think he carried it on? No. He ran against the slogan.
Now you hear the slogan again.
30 years....OMG. TD ended with Reagan. See control chart post Reagan.
It was something made up that never was any different than what is done now by all sides.
It did get ole Reagan in the corner, and had to defend the label. But, it was a dead slogan before he died.
Nothing has changed much since then.
These competing Economic Theories are no worse or better than Marxism.
It is why John F. Nash won the Nobel Prize in Economics. This superseded all other Theory...except in Politics, of course.
An American mathematician who won the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, along with John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten, for his development of the mathematical foundations of game theory. Nash Jr.'s research differentiated between cooperative and non-cooperative games. He also developed an equilibrium theory known as the Nash Equilibrium (of which the prisoner's dilemma is a well-known example).
Keynsian, Voodooian, Draconian, etc are done in. They don't recognize "make a bigger pie."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics‎
H.W. Bush derided Reagan's supply-side policies as "voodoo economics".
Do you think he carried it on? No. He ran against the slogan.
Now you hear the slogan again.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Horse and Sparrow
Galbraith was a clever one. I always liked his humour (but Stigler was the funniest of all).
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Robin Hood Economics doesn't work either. What happens when you give back all the money Prince John stole? Life isn't either or.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Of course the person earning wages is doing it based on a consensual interaction.
The person you would have others listen to, relies upon theft for their money. Taking advice from thieves might be suspect, since the goal of the thief is to magically legitimize his theft.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
I don't think most people would categorize economists as thieves, I may be wrong.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Economists are no better than Marxists with algebra. Until Nash it was all opinion, math-lite, Voodoo. Now the only Voodoo is in Politics.
Economics is a game with markers. It is not a Zero Sum Game. The stock market, Kenysian and Supply Side theory are all examples of Zero sum games. Until Nash, there was no way why to math out the real game of economics....growth.
Economies are not Zero Sum. Roulette is Zero Sum. For someone to win, someone else has to lose.
Economies grow and shrink. And the is no Zero Summing in either direction. Either we grow the pot of gold, so there is more gold for everyone in the cooperation, or we shrink the pot of gold, because we place impediments on cooperative competition.... over taxing new tech, say.
My computer world is Nashian. Keep your enemies closer than friends is Nashian.
Nature is Nashian. If the virus and bacteria stopped cooperative competition within us, we would fall over dead.
Economics is a game with markers. It is not a Zero Sum Game. The stock market, Kenysian and Supply Side theory are all examples of Zero sum games. Until Nash, there was no way why to math out the real game of economics....growth.
Economies are not Zero Sum. Roulette is Zero Sum. For someone to win, someone else has to lose.
Economies grow and shrink. And the is no Zero Summing in either direction. Either we grow the pot of gold, so there is more gold for everyone in the cooperation, or we shrink the pot of gold, because we place impediments on cooperative competition.... over taxing new tech, say.
My computer world is Nashian. Keep your enemies closer than friends is Nashian.
Nature is Nashian. If the virus and bacteria stopped cooperative competition within us, we would fall over dead.
JohnnySocko
Active Member
look we can't just keep cutting taxes for rich people in the hopes they might somehow share that wealth, make more jobs and just not fucking spend it on more boats and shit....
problem with this theory is it assumes all money they spend ends up indirectly creating jobs, eh...a lil, but its mostly bullshit perpetrated by Republicans to please thier base....
...and as far as regulations go: for the most part its just whining by industrialist so they can increase thier bottom line and pollute, drill or do whatever they want as they see fit (see Jack Welch and the Hudson River) ....friggin Limbaugh got his hillbilly ignorant minions believing this crap (yeah spare me, yeah "Activist" pull the same crap on ghetto ignoramuses)
But OTOH
...lets face it: this minimum wage shit is just another entitlement by the dems to sorta "buy votes" more or less
problem with this theory is it assumes all money they spend ends up indirectly creating jobs, eh...a lil, but its mostly bullshit perpetrated by Republicans to please thier base....
...and as far as regulations go: for the most part its just whining by industrialist so they can increase thier bottom line and pollute, drill or do whatever they want as they see fit (see Jack Welch and the Hudson River) ....friggin Limbaugh got his hillbilly ignorant minions believing this crap (yeah spare me, yeah "Activist" pull the same crap on ghetto ignoramuses)
But OTOH
...lets face it: this minimum wage shit is just another entitlement by the dems to sorta "buy votes" more or less
buying more boats is what we want them to do. There is a boat factory, and a guy driving a truck with boats on it, a boat salesman, and a boat delivery guy, and people at the marina to service the boat, and the marina gets services and products from other local people. Rich people buying shit helps everyone. It is when rich people invest their money in foreign economies as a tax shelter here that we get fucked. But the problem is that we have lowered taxes about as much as you can lower them and expect to see any real gain from it. They need to go way the fuck up for a little while. Like 80% top marginal rate, that far up. Why? That is a de facto maximum wage. Give it a few years, and drop it some more.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yet somehow this concept doesn't apply or create jobs when the government hires people to improve a highway, who then have money to spend at local businesses. not to mention when the government buys materials needed to improve the highway from local businesses, who hire employees to provide that product, who then spend money at local businesses, and so on and so forth.
same exact concept, but then it's called the ARRA and is deemed a massive failure by the same people making the sandwich maker's argument above.
JohnnySocko
Active Member
yeah, maybe in a perfect world w/o a nasty trade deficit...
basically sayin that theory is predicated on all that supply chain shit being made in the USA...
buying big screen TV's and Benzo's ain't making your avg American any cheeze...
hell, I'm hardly anti union, but some relief might be some of those high paying UAW union jobs for $30/hr be split into two $15 jobs (but we know GM or Ford would rather pocket the difference)
heckler73
Well-Known Member
You are quite wrong with that statement, just for the record (cf. Ramsey, Tingbergen, VonNeumann, Philips, Kaldor, Kalecki, etc.). Perhaps orthodoxy wasn't imbued with mathematical excellence, but there were plenty of economists (and mathematicians, for that matter) gnawing away at the boundaries of reason using some serious tools.
For example, I was not aware of Frank Ramsey's influence on Keynes, and neither are most economists. Perhaps because Ramsey's life was so short? Who knows.
And yet he came up with this brilliant model of savings which only became more widely adopted some 50 years after his death.
So while your overall opinion of the field is not without merit, your perception of history is. Personally, I think Nash is overrated for his contribution.
Doer
Well-Known Member
It counts. Sure it counts. Spending the money around is the name of the game, is how the game is played, etc. You need govt. I need govt.
And just as we owe 2/3 of our debt to ourselves, we employ a lot of ourselves to regulated ourselves.
This is self rule.
And nothing is correct about either side of the argument of does or does not the govt have a responsibility to create jobs.
In self rule we spend the money around and around in a complicated game of "get some" and "class goading."
But, when we are threatened WE can put the entire thing on War Footing all hands, martial law in an afternoon of voting.
Both sides of politics are both wrong, simple because, according to each side they are the only ones that are Correct.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Sad that you think Jon Stewart delivers news.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Jon is only ABLE to sell 32 minutes a week. Fox is not only able to sell more time, they are able to charge a higher price for it, too. You perceive failure as succes. The problem here is that Liberal bias tend to have what you percieve as Facts, when they are simply WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.
budleydoright
Well-Known Member
And your disputing the facts with....?
budleydoright
Well-Known Member
I certainly don't view fox as a failure, just full of shit. Big difference.
You get your's from fox and friends and I'll stick with the 2 gay Rhodes scholars and the 2 funny guys on comedy central. Let's see who get's more facts.