Exceptional tax cuts for rich 'good for economy': practice fails - theory is broken

originally posted by: solargeddon
a reply to: Maxmars

Thanks for bringing this to the boards...it really isn't a surprise, in fact in the last year I have become fed up of the people who scream "I am fed up paying for all the non-working!" This is increasingly being replaced with "I am fed up with paying for the low income families who don't work as much as I do!"

...

If we all aren't spending the machine stops.

There it is! The maxim that any thoughtful citizen sees easily. Wealth that is not used serves no-one. In a world where every person on the planet is restricted to operate with less than 1% of all available 'existing' wealth no economy can work. It is all an illusion based upon whatever the public's information system provides. They keep showing you heroes competing for scraps and they call that 'success' - meanwhile the real power of the economy is kept away from everyone... not because it is being used - but because it is not being used - at all. It is being hoarded.

When an economy is said to "function" with only 1% of the wealth in play... how can it possibly work?

originally posted by: jimmyx
I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all, but a lot of us already knew this about the trickle down theory. the wealthy has kept this idea alive for decades....the only thing that is going to help the majority in this country is to radically change political donations, and the funding of our political system....this is the political "area" where we as Americans have to insist on strict and harsh regulations and laws, backed by long prison times. liken the lobbyists, and political donors to junkyard dogs, in that they are necessary, but kept on a short steel chain leash.

I believe the political system - as it is today - is a tool to allow people to believe that they have some means to address the problems put in place by an untouchable entity who is more powerful than nations..., the global banking cartel and their political henchmen. It works because the media tells us we love them so.

Meanwhile the political thespian careerists maneuver, with the help of their institutions, to maintain the illusion that we want to send our kids off to die for their profit-making friends... not that ANY of their kids serve in such a capacity, generally speaking.

a reply to: Maxmars

Yes! And thank you for expanding so beautifully on my thought. I could not find a way to say so much so succinctly! My grasp of these economic issues is pretty basic. But you are right. There is no one single cause, but rather a multi-faceted coordinated economic takeover and/or takedown. We'll see.

a reply to: Maxmars
actually we have two economies running, the one we are living in where we go to work to collect a paycheck every week that we spend paying our bills investing in our iras or whatever and buying our necessities,or run our businesses and well write those checks to pay our employees and then there is the other that leaches off of our economy in so many different ways it's practically insane.
in that economy the money isn't actually stagnant it's flowing, being invested in various paper products- stocks, bonds, derivatives, ect, none that have really that much value in and of itself just like our cash don't. but well those who hold much have great power to sway the accepted value of these pieces of paper higher or lower at their whim. and well since it's the major stockholder that sit on the boards that decide the policies that the corporations take, well they have the power to drive down the wages while increasing the prices charged all for profit and increased stock values of course!
that is where the economic activity has been taking place.

a reply to: Maxmars

ADVOCATES of trickle-down economics argue that, when the rich get extra income, they invest it and create more jobs – and a higher income – for others. Those people, in turn, spend their extra money. Eventually the effect trickles down the whole system, making everyone better off, in absolute terms.

They been running that crap for decades under many guises. Another term for it from a different era was "Reaganomics". Over in Europe the call it Austerity. Essentially they fool Main Street into letting the rich get richer.

Glad to see the age of internet where at least if you are on line and looking for more than aggrandizement you can discover this and not be fooled by it anymore.

a reply to: Maxmars

I think the theory is actually sound. Rich is a matter of opinion. A person earning under 30k a year in the United States sees someone earning 90k+ as Rich, so the term rich is subjective.

The other thing to consider is the sheer amount of illegal immigration that does effect unemployment rates, and also you have to take into account a reasonable amount of the poor population are poor for a reason.

Alabama passed an anti-illegal immigrant law, which crippled their farming and agriculture industry. The politicians in Alabama believed the poor would take the hold the job in the agg industry that were vacated by the illegal immigrants. What they found was poor americans are lazy, and are not capable of producing the same level of work as the illegal immigrants. Their GDP dropped by almost 10%, which is insane. Vice did an episode on this.

The problem in America isn't that the rich are getting richer. The problem is there is a growing willingness to be lazy. Hard work is not common in our country. This is why a great depression might be good, because it would cull the lazy and unproductive.

a reply to: Stuship

Those are some wonderfully partisan talking points.

Debt based economy is slavery & evil incarnate.

End of story.

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I appreciate your input, but prefer it remain with the op and it's subject, if you please.

If you check my post, I responded to someone else's post and my last paragraph was on topic. And I believe that people should look at the entire situation when talking about the Civil War instead of simply the watered down or nostalgic side.

As for the OP, I do find it funny now. Not because of the income inequality, because as a socialist, I'm obviously against that. But it's funny to me because of the absurdity of the situation. Nobody ever holds elected officials accountable for not redistributing the weatlh (which is literally the opposite of trickle down economics). And when we socialists mention this, we get ridiculed & mocked. But then people go right back to asking the same questions about why trickle down economics don't work for normal people. I used to get angry, then frustrated, then apathetic, and now I just laugh about it. Because you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink it.

I mean, how many decades can people be fooled by the same lies? Every economic policy Republicans and Democrats enact is designed to help the wealthy first. This will never change because citizens, politicians and most importantly, political donors don't want this to change. And every time reform is mentioned, the conversation is changed because of some new false flag event, some new xenophobic issue, some new war or "big bad overseas menace", etc. So even if citizens want it to change, our attention is diverted & the topic is dropped.

It's all a charade. Every war, peace deal, "humanitarian aid" program (look up "Aid for Trade"), trade deal, tax break, etc is designed to enrich the wealthy. So we can't say the policies have failed because they haven't. They're working to perfection. The problem is that citizens keep assuming those policies are meant to work for them. Political power brokers at the national level don't care one bit for the common people. So why would their policies be aimed at benefiting us?

a reply to: Stuship

You think the theory is sound? Is this based upon absence of 99 percent of all wealth from the "free" market? Or is it just a reflection of your comfort with what you have come to regard as the status quo?

Poverty isn't about how much you make, it's about how you have to live in your host society. Poverty is about having to fear every contingency on the horizon because you cannot afford any. Poverty is about being a perpetual victim to a society that considers you a 'problem' and not a person. It's about not being in control of your future, (let alone that of your dependents.) Poverty is being completely removed from the body of society that can enjoy the absence financial fear.

I often wonder at the separation people seem so willing to accept. Poor = character flaw. Amazing conditioning at work here. And I suppose that we can't expect the rich to understand the poor... except insofar as they are deficient somehow. I imagine that it is normal to consider anyone poor as 'rightfully so.'

I also imagine that those employers in Alabama expected people to gratefully endure the same abuses and substandard working conditions as someone who is a fugitive of justice. Yeah... poor people suck... that's how the world works for some.

The larger picture is this... feed the world with one percent of the food - and the fat folks who keep the rest bitch about the ungrateful and weak poor. Society is supposed to exist to further the human experience... this kind of "poor is not my problem" mentality makes it a hell on Earth for anyone who isn't willing to be someone's minimum-wage bitch.

originally posted by: jimmyx
I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all, but a lot of us already knew this about the trickle down theory. the wealthy has kept this idea alive for decades....the only thing that is going to help the majority in this country is to radically change political donations, and the funding of our political system....this is the political "area" where we as Americans have to insist on strict and harsh regulations and laws, backed by long prison times. liken the lobbyists, and political donors to junkyard dogs, in that they are necessary, but kept on a short steel chain leash.

There's a major problem with this approach though. Who's going to write the laws to change political donations & the funding of our political system? If it's the current political insiders, they'll just write the laws in a way that benefits themselves (and their friends, relatives, and allies).

So we'd basically need to get an independent movement elected first. Then have them write the laws in ways that don't cover up the abuses of previous administrations and that are fair for all American citizens. If only 1 or 2 people with this mindset are elected, they'll just get marginalized or isolated. But if there's a large enough number elected at the same time, they'd have enough votes to pass the legislation you're talking about.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I can only think that the reason otherwise sane and rational people accept the entire theater of "trickle down" is because of the prevailing weight of information being delivered to them. Every 'informative' effort from the establishment seems orchestrated to make us feel that all is relatively OK with our economy.... while millions struggle to live a better life - when that wouldn't be necessary if wealth hoarding weren't a modern day virtue.

On a global scale the same can be said of the actors on that stage. While millions starve int he world, thousands of families sit with billions of dollars idly stored' somewhere... and it's "OK" because it's 'their' money.

It wouldn't be so tragic if it weren't all a lie based on the premise that virtual dollars have real value. Ever since our global leaders bought into the fractional lending scheme leading to huge make-believe wealth - the rest of the world - those who 'do' for a living - must compete as if there wasn't enough to go around.

Perhaps I'm too old fashioned. I tried to keep the world from going in this direction. But of course, the mainstream opinion seems to be confined to define poverty as a personal defect.

a reply to: Maxmars

The reason Americans bought into trickle down is because a large majority of Americans think, that by some miracle, they will someday become rich as well. The whole "work hard and you will succeed" sounds great on paper, but there are millions of people working like dogs, and only 1 percent of them are successful, and the lions share of that is due to hereditary wealth (why do you think they are so determined to repeal the estate tax?). The American dream is largely a myth I am sorry to say. Yes, its just remotely possible that if you work like a dog someday you will have a house on the hill. But for everyone who makes it, there are tens of thousands who worked just as hard and never do. But we just keep believing the fairy tale.

a reply to: Maxmars

I agree. It's like when media pundits are raving about the latest economic rebound, even though homelessness, food insecurity, and poverty are everywhere. I realized they're not talking to us. They're talking to their other wealthy friends & colleagues. Times are great for them and their investments are paying off massively.

But I haven't given up hope yet. I think the younger generation has the capability to break the cycle. They're not invested in the current system yet & their mastery of new technologies can be a game changer. A single teenager can reach the entire world now on a whim. And they can instantly fact check nearly any event, policy, organization, or accusation. Their potential is mind boggling.

So I just try to give advice to the ones who are trying to navigate the maze, in hopes that I can help them avoid some of its pitfalls. I try to help them see the trappings of debt, the constant attacks on pensions & the safety net, and the false promises our leaders make. That way they can recognize the true purposes of policies like trickle down economics, the war on drugs, and the war on terror.

The basis of this article is not correct. The rich invest all of the time. The thing is, they don't invest back into western economies where there is a much smaller return on their investment. They only invest here in things like securities and treasuries to guard their wealth, but that really isn't an investment in the economy.

Exellent post Maxmars. First of all, I have very little understanding of economic theory. But, it seems to me that there has to be a "breaking point" somewhere. I'm just wondering where that point would be and how would it manifest. When the middle class declines to a point when basic essentials are hard to afford or even unaffordable, what happens? Civil war? Economic collapse? Or are there solutions to avoid these or other disasters?

a reply to: IsntLifeFunny

I understand the distinction... but it does not apply to reality... only virtual currency regulations which are inherently abusive.

Investing in securities is like the magic of more money by interest. Money does not reproduce (nor does it flow freely, for that matter.) We have been assured of the sound logic that millionaires can become billionaires by playing in the derivatives market (which is purely a 'virtual' thing concocted by the banking regime) .... the net result of their stewardship is that an reckless conduct that has brought every nation under it's "purview" to have nearly failed in recent history... (Seriously, how is this not part of the discussion? It happened globally.)

Playing with virtual money is irrelevant to human life, it's demands and nature... it is a make-believe confidence game meant to create massive revenue streams, only 99% seems to go to 1% of the population.... how is it unreasonable to hold that metric to light and yet accept that "all is as it should be?"

When we speak of investment we remember the notion of building, taking a chance on an idea or service... enlisting a crew, succeeding... wow... thank goodness you didn't have a competitor with deeper pockets. This is not about personal success, it's not about pointless guilt over something we have no intention of acting on...,

I am simply trying to maintain that what is not fallacious is the gargantuan disparity in the amount of available wealth in the world, and the ironic notion that we were said to have believed the Keynesian mistake (and not only as a nation.) Perhaps the theory did not allow for the derivative nature of the risk taking the market became free to use our money in. Investment was meant to be a "real" thing... not 'derivatives' investing (nudge nudge wink wink) - instead of outright gambling which it appears to be in reality.

All over the world banks threw your accumulated investment earnings into a pool full of their gobbledegook - but we are to think that some pretty face, or mesmerizing charisma will magically fix it? Not gonna happen. It's going to take decades to unravel the web they have been allowed to weave.

This has happened all over the world... the net result is clear.. the maximum effort to convince us that it was for our good is telling... the abject silence of our 'representatives' who all appear convinced that 'logic' doesn't apply here... it is economagic, wondrous to behold... (as they themselves gain access to investment information the rest of us could never get.)

I am afraid this is going to turn out to be a "Serpico" story in the long run...

Sorry... I do go on.

originally posted by: akaal
Exellent post Maxmars. First of all, I have very little understanding of economic theory. But, it seems to me that there has to be a "breaking point" somewhere. I'm just wondering where that point would be and how would it manifest. When the middle class declines to a point when basic essentials are hard to afford or even unaffordable, what happens? Civil war? Economic collapse? Or are there solutions to avoid these or other disasters?

I think it is important to point out the lesson of history that is often lost. Ending the status quo is not a solution in a global community. It simply will not work. Not every evil in the world is permanent. Rather than focusing on a what is clearly a lose lose scenario, I propose a investigatory approach to every implemented policy in place.

The defense of any establishment is that the system of the whole cannot be comprehended... only the parts. I think that is a lie. I think the "by the whole" is exactly how any institution should be judged by those who it serves.

The muffled outrage in in the fact that the flaw was not in the theory, but in the banks themselves. They are, as one someone once said "bloodsucking parasites."

The breaking point is past. The maneuver of the banking cartel into an NGO with multiple international facades made them a permanent affliction - for now. I think of Iceland, and I smile.

Phenomenal post. I love the part about "appearing to care, not actually caring."

This subject, although i can't stand it, is actually pretty fascinating. "Trickle down" economics.. More like "pickle clown" or better yet, "nickel down", because for every one hundred dollars of tax cuts for the rich about one nickel trickles down. Its really silly. And sad that so many people were duped and are being duped .

Any argument against it automatically gets labled as socialism. You can't just say I support the free market, but there need to be laws and regulations in place to distribute the money, at least a little more equally. And stronger environmental laws and conservatIon. Nope, apparently that's right up there with Nazi Germany. All government is bad and the free market is our flawless savior.

Trickle down sounds so wonderful and could be in a world where the rich actually cared about the middle and lower classes having more jobs and purchasing power. But in the real world, the rich feel entilted to the vast majority of the wealth and have no desire to create jobs. Jobs are a cost which lowers profits. It's why companies automate and will continue to automate more and more. Fewer and fewer jobs will be available. Sure, SOME jobs will come out of the tech industry, but many more will be replaced. When someone says it will be a one to one ratio of jobs created for every job lost it's completely unfounded. It's just more lies to maintain the status quo.

The interesting thing is that these huge corporations still need people to have some money to by their products and services. Once the new economic order of the eighties hit, tax cuts for the wealthy, union busting, financial deregulation, etc, the average person's purchasing power took a hit. It was bad even for the wealthy. So what was the establishments answer... credit cards. A bubble that eventually burst. Then the most recent housing bubble that burst in 2007. Of course now we're in the middle of one of the biggest periods of income inequality in U.S. history, while the establishment says the answer is MORE tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation. And the only answer for the rest of us is to cut back and work more hours.

And while mom and dad are both working sixty hours to put food on the table, they listen to right wing talk radio on their way to work that tells them that trickle down economics is by far the best economic system ever designed and Milton Freedman is best friends with Jesus in heaven... and they believe every word of it.

You just can't make this stuff up.The real world truly is stranger than fiction.

a reply to: Stuship

Always the same ole argumentative focus on the "lazy." Never a focus on the rich taking home the vast majority of the fruits of the labor.

I saw the vice episode too. Are there lazy people in the world. Of course there are. But that is not the majority. Why do we continue to defend and justify these fat cats while the majority of working people barely get a slice of the pie. And it's the "people are lazy" BS that keeps the sham going.

Like Mr. Carlin once said, "The rich keep the lower and middle classes fighting with each other, while THEY run off with all the money."

originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: Maxmars

I think the theory is actually sound. Rich is a matter of opinion. A person earning under 30k a year in the United States sees someone earning 90k+ as Rich, so the term rich is subjective.

The other thing to consider is the sheer amount of illegal immigration that does effect unemployment rates, and also you have to take into account a reasonable amount of the poor population are poor for a reason.

Alabama passed an anti-illegal immigrant law, which crippled their farming and agriculture industry. The politicians in Alabama believed the poor would take the hold the job in the agg industry that were vacated by the illegal immigrants. What they found was poor americans are lazy, and are not capable of producing the same level of work as the illegal immigrants. Their GDP dropped by almost 10%, which is insane. Vice did an episode on this.

The problem in America isn't that the rich are getting richer. The problem is there is a growing willingness to be lazy. Hard work is not common in our country. This is why a great depression might be good, because it would cull the lazy and unproductive.

In market economics, you raise the compensation until you attract workers.
But they wanted to pay peanuts.
Americans did it before in the past but not for slave wages