Economy Right wing economic theory BTFO again.

[AndroidRage]

Have fun with 3rd world infrastructure, customers and sketchy governments.

"Ooooh we better cuck to these billionaires or else they're gonna leave us"

You're a little simp dude.

If they leave then someone else will fill the void left by them.

The thing is though, they won't leave.

Go look at the minimum wage in Denmark,
Guess what, they still have large corporations and a healthy economy.

Well said.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

Conservatives don't care about policy. They've gone all in on their imaginary un-winable culture war to turn back the hands of time; it's their new lost cause.

Ironic. You accuse your foes of fighting an imagjnary foe while you shake your fist at a giant man made of straw

 

[Blayt7hh]

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thom...and-then-profits-flow-upward-later-if-at-all/

The phrase “trickle down” often comes up in discussions of tax policies. Historically, tax revenues have in a number of instances gone up when tax rates have been reduced. But any proposal by economists or others to cut tax rates, including reducing the tax rates on higher incomes or on capital gains, can lead to accusations that those making such proposals must believe that benefits should be given to the wealthy in general or to business in particular, in order that these benefits will eventually “trickle down” to the masses of ordinary people. But no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories.

What is sought by those who advocate lower rates of taxation or other reductions of government’s role in the economy is not the transfer of existing wealth to higher income earners or businesses but the creation of additional wealth when businesses are less hampered by government controls or by increasing government appropriation of that additional wealth under steeply progressive taxation laws. Whatever the merits or demerits of this view, this is the argument that is made – and which is not confronted, but evaded, by talk of a non-existent “trickle-down” theory.

More fundamentally, economic processes work in the directly opposite way from that depicted by those who imagine that profits first benefit business owners and that benefits only belatedly trickle down to workers.

When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens. Even when one person decides to operate a store or hamburger stand without employees, that person must first pay somebody to deliver the goods that are going to be sold. Money goes out first to pay expenses and then comes back as profits later – if at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about the money coming back.

This article has some false statements in it though. Trickle down theories have been around and bandied by prize winning economist since around the turn of the 20th century. And while that trickling down to the masses is the way it’s summed up, the idea behind it was always that it would happen indirectly through the rich reinvesting and creating more wealth.

It’s actually a sound theory on paper. Problem is we have had 50+ years of it now and it’s a proven failure. I don’t blame the Reagan era gop for pushing it and trying it. It made sense at the time and a lot of studied people believed it. How the modern gop could keep pushing it though is a bit of a head scratcher. We e seen the results - a shrinking middle class and comically lopsided wealth distribution

 

[Loiosh]

They don’t care about the economy, pollution or school shootings. Correcting those problems isn’t on the Republican agenda.

They care about university students being too liberal and hating immigrants, that’s it. Talking to a Republican about the economy is like talking to a child about something other than toys. They can’t pay attention.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thom...and-then-profits-flow-upward-later-if-at-all/

The phrase “trickle down” often comes up in discussions of tax policies. Historically, tax revenues have in a number of instances gone up when tax rates have been reduced. But any proposal by economists or others to cut tax rates, including reducing the tax rates on higher incomes or on capital gains, can lead to accusations that those making such proposals must believe that benefits should be given to the wealthy in general or to business in particular, in order that these benefits will eventually “trickle down” to the masses of ordinary people. But no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories.

What is sought by those who advocate lower rates of taxation or other reductions of government’s role in the economy is not the transfer of existing wealth to higher income earners or businesses but the creation of additional wealth when businesses are less hampered by government controls or by increasing government appropriation of that additional wealth under steeply progressive taxation laws. Whatever the merits or demerits of this view, this is the argument that is made – and which is not confronted, but evaded, by talk of a non-existent “trickle-down” theory.

More fundamentally, economic processes work in the directly opposite way from that depicted by those who imagine that profits first benefit business owners and that benefits only belatedly trickle down to workers.

When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens. Even when one person decides to operate a store or hamburger stand without employees, that person must first pay somebody to deliver the goods that are going to be sold. Money goes out first to pay expenses and then comes back as profits later – if at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about the money coming back.

The very first thing is assessment of demand. Without strong demand there is no point continuing.
Wages, taxes and costs are all irrelevant without it.

The further you go up the wealth scale the weaker the correlation between increased after tax income and demand.

Accordingly "growing the pie" by decreasing upper class tax rates still works, but not as efficiently as focusing on lower wealth demographics.

 

[adam199]

It's so surreal watching conservatives complain about the ultra rich, giant corporations, and the eroding middle class, and then turn around and defend the economic policies that created those things.

 

[Paradigm]

WAY too much cuff showing.

 

[Loiosh]

WAY too much cuff showing.

You're not wrong.

 

[no fat chicks]

Did you really think I give a shit whether you take me seriously or not?

I genuinely have no idea what you're even talking about.

Well comprehension and nuance is definitely something you've shown yourself to be lacking across multiple threads in the WR.
You're forgiven

 

[Fox by the Sea]

no such thing as Nobel prize for Economics.

 

[no fat chicks]

no such thing as Nobel prize for Economics.

Ahh ya got me

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

Could somebody please define right wing economic policy? Is it just capitalism? Seems pretty vague.

 

[Bargey]

First they were wrong with trickle down economics nonsense.

Now with the fight against allowing for an increase in the minimum wage. All because it will hurt muh economy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58870395

Apparently paying people above slave wages isn't as disastrous as many here would have led us to believe.

The study has won the author this year's noble prize in economics.

Sad the party of fiscal responsibility doesn't seem to have a grasp on how things work in the real world.

Next step is to push UHC on these dummies.

Sadly many would rather everyone do worse, as long as it hurts the poor more than them.
Just as Jesus would have wanted.

Ever seen a poor man provide a rich man with a job? Didn’t think so

 

[Sano]

It's not about what I think. It's about what the super rich think, when they're being told to pay $15-$20 an hour to people in one country, to do the same job they can pay people a bowl of rice a day to do in another country. Are they gonna just do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

I have a hard time with this argument and it's used in regards to taxes as well. You are never going to be able to compete wage wise with countries were workers get compensated with a "bowl of rice". By that logic you might slash all wages right now.

Competitiveness in first world countries comes down to worker flexibility, skill and robust business and infrastructure. From having a high floor. Most of the top 10 business friendly and competitive countries in the world have high living standards and high minimum wages with strong unions and worker protections.

 

[RogerB08]

Ironic. You accuse your foes of fighting an imagjnary foe while you shake your fist at a giant man made of straw

Now you're just projecting.

 

[Patrick Jane]

Could somebody please define right wing economic policy? Is it just capitalism? Seems pretty vague.

Boiled down:

 

[EndlessCritic]

Trickle down theories have been around and bandied by prize winning economist since around the turn of the 20th century.

Ok. Post one then and refute Sowell's claim. I don't know the truth.

 

[James Bomb]

It's so surreal watching conservatives complain about the ultra rich, giant corporations, and the eroding middle class, and then turn around and defend the economic policies that created those things.

It’s not that surreal once you start thinking about conservatism as less of a consistent ideology and more as just the wealthy defending the status quo.

Distract the middle class with the Great Culture War (Bisexual Superman!!) Meanwhile keep gerrymandering and making it harder to vote, and then you can keep pushing unpopular policies on the electorate.

 

[panamaican]

So, when you put all these militant stipulations on the big money, and the big money fucks off, where does the money come from to pay for your utopia?

Just asking.

From new big money. The economy will always create new millionaires and new billionaires. It has done so forever and will continue to do so. It's the great myth that poor people keep buying into - that the rich is a finite resource created by the existing rich in isolation. The reality is that we have an economic system that has always created mega-rich people.

If all of our mega-rich moved to the Cayman Islands, it wouldn't matter in the long run. The customers and the infrastructure remain within the nation so the nation would create new mega-rich to replace those who had left. And they would be created under the new stipulations, whatever they are.

 

[lifelessheap]

They don’t care about the economy, pollution or school shootings. Correcting those problems isn’t on the Republican agenda.

They care about university students being too liberal and hating immigrants, that’s it. Talking to a Republican about the economy is like talking to a child about something other than toys. They can’t pay attention.

Honest question. Do you deal with illegals daily? Are your trash cans tagged with MS13 graffiti?

Have you been robbed by illegals?