Trickle down, is trickled on, is pissed on.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A summary of trickle down economic theory:
Collapse
X
-
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I take it you haven't ever met a hardcore free marketer.
Even Floyd believes in funding basic governmental services (of course, I guess, it depends on your definition of 'basic') and he's pretty hardcore, isn't he?
Not according to the principle of diminishing marginal utility it won't.
I think you misunderstand diminishing marginal utility. The extra $5 million (to get to $10 million) won't be as great in utility as the first $5 million, but that doesn't mean that it has NO utility at all. It still does, just less.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
I seem to remember him arguing that they should be funded by lotteries.
Well he wants the government to fund defense (ie, tiny military, police)... he can't seriously think that a lottery can pay for that... then again it is Floyd.
The utility "diminishes" - that was my point. 5 million bucks doesn't matter, ceterus paribus, as much to someone who already has 5 mil to someone that has nothing.
But it WILL increase the dude's standard of living.. even if it won't be to the extent a poor guy's SoL would increase.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I seem to remember him arguing that they should be funded by lotteries.
Well he wants the government to fund defense (ie, tiny military, police)... he can't seriously think that a lottery can pay for that... then again it is Floyd.
The utility "diminishes" - that was my point. 5 million bucks doesn't matter, ceterus paribus, as much to someone who already has 5 mil to someone that has nothing.
But it WILL increase the dude's standard of living.. even if it won't be to the extent a poor guy's SoL would increase.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
since I found out he was a major league tough guy.
Must have missed that thread
.
My point was that a flat tax is inequitable because SoL is what matters, not discrete monetary amounts.
But SoL IS based on discrete monetary amounts... its original definition is GDP per capita. And MtG is correct that if he gets more money due to a flat tax, his personal SoL benefits.... was his point.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon
The market is notoriously inefficient at providing useful things like health care and education.Old posters never die.
They j.u.s.t..f..a..d..e...a...w...a...y....
Comment
-
i think its a cultural thing. in america people like the market and privitization to a point. in the rest of the world people are willing to pay more taxes for government services.
and so far the world and america arent crumbling."I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adam Smith
The underlying Republican premise, with considerable factual support, is that the government is notoriously inefficient at providing services for which there are reasonable market alternatives.
And I've yet to see any real factual support for the "Republican" claims. School vouchers just don't work in my experience and introducing a market to health care just results in massive overheads and ridiculous purchases. The same goes for electricity - the market reforms where I lived just meant higher prices and worse service.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MRT144
i think its a cultural thing. in america people like the market and privitization to a point. in the rest of the world people are willing to pay more taxes for government services.
and so far the world and america arent crumbling.
Thank you and goodnight.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
thats not crumbling, thats getting a better deal and is true capitalism"I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger
Comment
-
Agathon:
health care and education.
As for education, look at any secondary school here in Canada. Teachers have to buy books out of their own pockets because the government does not fund proper school equipment.
the dismantling of inefficient public services that were being used to provide jobs and their replacement with State owned Enterprises.
Flat taxes impose more hardship on the poor since 20 dollars matters much more to a poor person than it does to a rich person. Again the principle of diminishing marginal utility applies.
Easy. Where are they? Can they be measured? What reasons do we have for believing in them?Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sikander
So China would be just as wealthy if no one bothered to invest there? Why do they seem so desperate for investment then?
Originally posted by Sikander
I agree that capital in and of itself cannot create wealth, but neither can labor.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Comment
-
Originally posted by obiwan18
Trickle down should benefit small as well as large businesses.
Originally posted by obiwan18
Still, even in a large business, the owners take a much larger risk than the workers, so why should they not be compensated for their efforts?
First of all, in aggregate, workers can have a lot more to lose than owners, even in absolute terms. Do remember, what owners actually lose when a company fails is their investments, which do not include things like capital raised through stock issues and retained earnings.
Secondly, a millionare could afford to lose a couple of millions and can still live comfortably, nay, luxuriously. A worker, on the other hand, could live hand-to-mouth. Thus, losing a job is often devestating.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Comment
-
Originally posted by obiwan18
Without natural rights, you cannot support the worker over the capitalist, as a society could simply say that all workers are shiftless bums, and treat them accordingly.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Comment
Comment