Trickle "UP" Economics or "Fountain" Economics

a reply to: mOjOm
Well trickle down economics basically is taken from the poor and giving to the rich. And trickle up economics would be basically taken from the rich and giving to the poor.

Well the model of trickle down economics has worked wonders for the rich and is a tried and true proven model to work, it has literally centuries of proof that it works. So the model of trickle up economics should work wonders for the poor and middle class as well.

As good an idea I ever heard on this thread, better then most infact.

a reply to: dawnstar
lol...They have to much moneys they don't know what to do with it, its not a matter of money its a mater of they don't have enough imagination between them to sqeuese out an ounce of lemon juice, so they come up with new ways of getting rid of it. This government problem isn't that its in dept or that there is not enough money, its that those you people keep putting in power don't have enough brain power between them to see there way out of cardboard box.

On taxes alone its probably like pissing away money. Or lets say what is the annual number of bigmacs sold each year? Google says its 550 million, or 17 per second, and a big Mack is $4 or almost $5 dollar now, the taxes alone on big macs would pay for a quarter paying back the Chinese per year, not to mention everything else you all get taxed, anything from chewing gum to socks, to getting taxed on doing taxes then taxed on that as well.

Or whatever it is they were going on when I was last looking at this crap last year. Wasn't that the big thing? Owing monies to china? lol, or how about that sequester thing they were going on about? What happened to that. Must have passed its expiration date. They got so much money they don't know what to do with it so just create these endless bubbles and now we even got to devalue it or else people might get wise and well you know got to shuffle thing around, including people.

Ah man you people never cease to amaze me. Only humans can go in social and economical and technological scale by leaps and bounds yet end up working 5 times as harder 20x as longer, and have it 50 times as harder as they did when they lived in caves and roaming tribes.

a reply to: Semicollegiate
Wow that is the stupidist # I heard today so far. So your saying that the only way to get rich and for everybody to get more wealthy and more productive is to reduce the worth of there labor, and increase the time?

Its a good thing I stopped reading threads on ATS all the way through back in 2010 because half the # you people say is just plain retard bonkers.

If they would just pay their fair share of taxes, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation.

The same thing always happens with this topic. 1 group suggests the rich need to pay their fair share of taxes, no need to have billions in the bank so you can influence politics. The other group turns it into we want to take all of their money.

If you are very successful in life, yes you should be able to enjoy your riches that you worked very hard for. Should you be able to hoard money overseas, while polluting the skies and ruining our bridges, roads, rivers, oceans? All the while sending your profits overseas to avoid paying taxes like the rest of us. Hell no you shouldn't.

On top of that, WE BAILED YOU OUT, it's only fair they actually be required to pay their fair share of those taxes and not be able to avoid them by using loopholes in the tax code. Hell, their lobbyists probably created those loopholes anyways.

/end rant

If this supposed money is not doing anything, then it has no velocity and thus is not part of the money supply. Bringing this do nothing money into the money supply increases the money supply and hence creates inflation.

if more of the profits were shifted down to the lowest level employees with the intention of providing enough to those employees that they could live on their paychecks and not on food stamps, the actual money that is in supply wouldn't change though, would it, just the source of that money would change while reducing the burden on taxpayers. The gov't spends quite a bit helping people get training and education so that big business can receive close to fully trained new employees to hire and they then gripe that they don't have anyone qualified and there's a need to look overseas for the employees. Well, if those big businesses would acknowledge their share of the responsibility to the future workforce and spend a little in training, that wouldn't increase the actual supply of money circulating, but rather take some of the burden off the gov't. The gov't is stepping in in so many ways to bring new businesses into the community, to help the business sector, and a large amount of that money is going to big businesses that have more than enough money, they don't need any help! But, since the gov't is more than happy to do these things for big business, well, the big business is more than happy to let them and use the money save to more out of the country, or gain such a competitive edge on their smaller competitors that they can compete and go under, thus creating a monopoly.

the problem is that much of the money that has been taken out of the flow has been taken out in such a way as to force the gov't to step in and replace it. changing gov't policies so that it's tax breaks, and other assistance that it is handing out to the business sector goes to start ups and small businesses instead of big corps that are pulling in huge profits and nest eggs in tax shelters would be a start. realizing that quite frankly, it's more in the interest of the businesses to have a trained, well fed, healthy workforce than it is the gov't and taxpayers, so therefore the responsibility for that should be placed more on the business sector. Doing otherwise has led to a ton of businesses that have such crappy business plans that they are just as dependent on the gov't as their employees when it comes to the food stamps, the hud subsidies, ect.
start rewarding those businesses that are at least trying to accept that responsibility (a responsibility that by the way used to be accepted by most businesses, as well as society in general.) with the tax breaks, ect. but remove those who instead of accepting it are bestowing million dollar salaries to their upper management teams while their lower employees are getting the bulk of the needs met by gov't subsidies.

and well, start regulating that dark investment community! the commodities market, the derivatives, ect, and make it so that the next time it blows up, it will be the investors that eat the loss and not those who have no idea what those markets are all about. food is a commodity, oil is a commodity, as well as a bunch of other items that we depend on. The speculators in these markets play just as big of a role in creating inflation as anything else does. heck look at how high housing costs went up during the most recent housing boom. do you really think that they would have risen that fast if it wasn't for the fact that the speculating that the values would continually go up and they'd make a nice profit on them in a few years, or the banks didn't know that no matter how crappy the borrowers credit ratings were they could still unload them and have them sliced and diced up, packaged and then sold off at higher and higher values, new toys for them to play with, new chips added to their poker game?

if increasing the minimum wage has such an inflationary effect on the market, what the heck happens when the gov't gives more and more subsidies out for healthcare, mainly to the insurance companies who agree to sell insurance to the lower income brackets and those companies then decide to celebrate buy giving their top employees huge bonuses and salary increases, while more than likely some of their lower employees celebrate that they can now insure their kids or other family members?

a reply to: mOjOm

By the time the "conservatives" offered trickle down economics, they had been FDR democrats for 20 years, in other words, the "Conservatives" are socialistically oriented collectivists. Real conservatives would not have gotten the US into WW1, WW2 or the Federal Reserve's management into the Great Depression. That is how long the whole system has been shifted Left.

The truth begged by "trickle down economics" was that rich people's money was normally used to create greater wealth for every one in society. This real and true wealth creation was done via investment and loans however. Redistributing money does not increase the wealth in society.

Production increases the wealth in society.

Only production increases the wealth in society.

Shifting wealth from the top to the bottom is the only way for prosperity and progress to happen.

Prosperity and progress are results of new wealth being created. Shifting wealth from one person to another does not create new wealth.

Just like a fountain, for it to continue operating the water must go back and be recycled through over and over. Same with money.

Good analogy of the money supply. Money is not wealth per se. Money is used to trade labor, or production, or resources from those who want them less to those who want them more. That is money's major function, i.e. to facilitate trade. The idea that money is wealth in itself forgets that money can't do anything but be traded for real world things. (which must be produced)

The poorest among us will simply spend that money. This in turn is what keeps the businesses of the middle class and above operating and the wealth goes to them. Then they spend it on what they need and in their businesses and up it goes naturally toward the wealthiest among us like it always has. This is why the whole argument proves itself and shows why doing so benefits everyone. Yes, even those on the top and the middle. The wealth goes right back toward the wealthiest among us naturally while traveling through every other class below them on the way. That is what a functioning economy is and how it works.

In this course of events there is no new wealth created. If the money given directly to the poor had instead been used to facilitate production or services, then wealth would be increased, the larger supply of goods would give the poor lower prices, and more wealth could be assigned to research and invention, which increases productivity and all aspects of quality of life.

Ultimately redistribution amounts to having a chair and giving it away at the same time. Or two people eating the same mouthful of food.

A functioning economy makes more stuff for every one. A disfunctional economy eats out its surplus, that is, redistributes its non increasing wealth.

That said, there are many in the rich class who have made millions without producing anything. This is a side effect of the original crony rules and pandering redistributions. It is not an aspect of the free market.




The trickle up idea has some reality. In our system a person loses wealth to inflation and governmental interventions simply by the passage of time. Every government rule increases the cost of production by some smaller or larger amount. The lowest cost product is the one that required only labor, capital, and resources. Every product made today requires in addition, licenses, taxes, records, and behaviors that are not necessary to make the product. Those taxes and behaviors raise the cost of everything and take a larger percentage of buying power away from the lowest incomes. As does inflation. The trickle up goes to the plutocrats and their gov front men.

The trickle up is not a free market, i.e. economic, phenomenon. When a person creates new wealth in a private property respecting system, he keeps some of that wealth. He can accumulate it without cost to anyone else because he made it, he did not take it from anyone else. Over time that wealth can accumulate to the point that he no longer needs to work, and that wealth was taken from no one else, that is no one else has a claim to it.

Absent the current gov interventions and fractional reserve banking, all the way back to their first hurts, each person would only need to work to about middle age in order to have a basic retirement.

Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"

Nick Hanauer: Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming

Robert Reich: Why Taxes Have to Be Raised on the Rich

Robert Reich - 3 Economic Myths - 2015

originally posted by: mOjOm
Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"

Rich people got rich because they made something that consumers wanted, at a lower price or higher quality than anyone else.

Maybe they got lucky, but as a class they probably guess right about what will sell and what will not more often than the well meaning but essentially clueless would be managers of everything.

Business failure is a symptom of excessive credit, where by businesses can gamble using easy money, produce inefficiently at an unsustainable cost, and have buyers because of the same easy credit.

Somewhere in the economy, scarcity determines which bidder will get the only thing. Easy credit, i.e. creating more money and spending it, obscures this scarcity and lets the wrong bidder get the last only thing until some industry necessary to economy has to go without. Then there is a depression/recession until the scarce resources find their way back to their most productive uses.

Jobs are gone because the people who should make all of the economic decisions are restricted, wealth has been removed from every normal persons family tree by inflation and taxation, and ignorant planners misallocate resources via wishful thinking policies.

Or else they do it on purpose.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Robert Reich: Why Taxes Have to Be Raised on the Rich

Political entrepreneurs should pay 99% income tax, because all of their wealth comes from playing the law.

Production and service entrepreneurs owe nothing because they have increased the wealth of society.

Greed without government causes investment and loans.

Greed with government causes taking from one to give to a voter.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I'm assuming you're a proponent of an absolutely non-regulated free market??? Would that be a safe guess???

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I'm assuming you're a proponent of an absolutely non-regulated free market??? Would that be a safe guess???

As free as language.

a reply to: CantStandIt

I understand it is lower. If it was higher goods would cost more dollars than they do. It is an odd time we are in atm. I was making a point that if this money was pushed into circulation the velocity of money would increase and so would prices.

I am asking to probe for knowledge of MV = PY

a reply to: mOjOm

this guy is hitting the nail right on the head! I only have on complaint, I invested in tar and feathers, not pitchforks.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

As free as language.

Everything comes with a price.

I think the ideas of true free market capitalism are very interesting and theoretically make a lot of sense. But I also think they don't account for every possible variable, which is almost impossible to do, which is why ultimately it, like all other theories we come up with, will and does fail.

But at least on paper and in theory they do very well and are very convincing.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: mOjOm

this guy is hitting the nail right on the head! I only have on complaint, I invested in tar and feathers, not pitchforks.

Yeah, I thought so too. It flips a lot of what we're normally told how things work on it's head and by judging the way things are and how they got here it would imply that it may be correct. Clearly the way we have been doing things hasn't been working and is getting worse so perhaps flipping those theories around might help.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

As free as language.

Everything comes with a price.

I think the ideas of true free market capitalism are very interesting and theoretically make a lot of sense. But I also think they don't account for every possible variable, which is almost impossible to do, which is why ultimately it, like all other theories we come up with, will and does fail.

But at least on paper and in theory they do very well and are very convincing.

Everything takes time.

You can only do one thing at a time (Opportunity Cost).

No system other than the free market can take into account every variable, either.

The free market finds solutions because everybody's brains are used all of the time. Top down systems use almost no brains, less than 10,000 compared to 10 billion.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

That's fine. Then let's just say that as it is now, our theories on Free Market Capitalism and how it best functions are incomplete at best and practically incorrect at worst. It doesn't account for certain realities or humanity and all it's strangeness. In an idealistic setting or with a less chaotic species it might function quite well and as it claims it should work. Perhaps in a more ordered mechanistic world.

I'm not saying any other theory is better or worse. Perhaps we need to mix parts of them all in with it, I don't know. All I can say is that on it's own it is a good, possibly the best theory so far, but it still has many problems that it can't account for.