Republicans

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:23 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:39 pm
Why is the documented failure of so-called trickle down economics not an established fact already? :dunno:

If internet trolls have taught us anything it's that we probably shouldnt vote for them, and we should definitely not give them a budget.
Well, what is it that trickle down economics would accomplish for you to consider that it works?
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 19955
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm

Exactly what it claim to do
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Strontium Dog
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:28 am
About me: Sensitive little flower
Location: Liverpool, UK
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Strontium Dog » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:37 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:22 pm
JimC wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:58 pm
The monied classes have always depended on politicians who can pull the wool over the working class and persuade them to vote against their own rational interests. Trump is just an extreme version of this phenomenon...
Given the policies he's enacted, it would seem that voting for Trump is in the working class' rational interests, and a vote for Clinton would have been against their rational interests. The interests of the working class are for lower taxes to them (which they got), higher wages (which they're getting), lower unemployment (which they're getting), protection for American industries (which Trump is doing), better access for american companies to foreign markets (which Trump is actively working on), good GDP growth, lower taxes, lower unemployment, high worker participation rate - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/work ... nder-trump

The working class doesn't give a shit about impolite tweets, and a womanizing philanderer who trades in trophy wives and who is uncouth, ill-mannered, and insulting, and a general dickhead. The working class doesn't give a fuck about that.
History has shown that tariffs are never good news for the ordinary consumer, no matter what certain people may claim.
Insert witty signature here

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:30 pm

Until Trump got elected, Democrats gave a nod to unions on that issue, and it was Democrats primarily that opposed free trade agreements and such.

Note, it was democrats pressuring trump to make good on his promise to impose steel tariffs - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/busi ... riffs.html
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said on Thursday that he would block the nominations of Gilbert B. Kaplan for the top international trade post at the Commerce Department and Nazakhtar Nikakhtar for assistant secretary of commerce until the White House advanced a stalled effort to protect American metal producers from cheap Chinese products.
I.e. leading democrats thought Trump was moving too slowly in imposing the steel and aluminum tariffs. So.... Chuckie boy was acting against the interest of the working class then?

Note also https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politics ... index.html
Only a tiny handful of Democrats -- including former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and three House members who lead a centrist Democrat task force on trade -- have joined Republicans and a wide array of economists in warning that the tariffs could cost more jobs than they create and risk a broader trade war. A slightly larger number of Democrats have welcomed the tariffs, most of them representing Rust Belt states such as Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Conor Lamb, the Democratic nominee in today's House special election in Pennsylvania, or positioning themselves as champions of the left (including Senator Elizabeth Warren). Most Democrats have tried to avoid the issue altogether.
I.e., Trump is opposed by traditional Republicans on this, and supported by traditional Democrats, but you'd never know that by listening to the nightly news. And, for those who consider themselves to be left wing, to suggest now that free trade is a left wing plank, well, that's just wrong. Until Trump, the left in the US was typically protectionist, supporting tariffs because of wage and working condition disparities.
This silence speaks volumes about the Democrats' inability, or unwillingness, to recognize the evolving nature of the party's demographic and geographic base. While many Democrats still think of the party as the home of blue-collar industrial regions hostile to trade, in fact, the party is now centered in the major metropolitan areas that are integrated into global markets and at the forefront of the transition into the information-age, digital economy. The most telling measure of that shift: while Hillary Clinton won fewer than one-sixth of America's counties in 2016, her counties accounted for nearly 60% of all US exports, according to calculations by the Metropolitan Policy Program at the center-left Brookings Institution.
Yet few Democrats are articulating the interest of those areas in the tariff debate -- either because they share the President's long-standing suspicion of free trade, or because they fear antagonizing the labor unions who promote protectionist policies as well.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:32 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Exactly what it claim to do
Well, I am asking what you believe it claims to do - because some people are referring to a more narrow economic principle when talking about trickle-down economics, and others are referring to the broader concept of "supply side" economics.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 58388
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by JimC » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:27 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:09 pm
JimC wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:22 pm
Nazis must be really conflicted now. They are so tempted to be as anti-Islamic as possible (coz they're only dirty brown rag heads), but fundamentalist muslims want to kill as many Jews as possible... What's a poor Nazi gunna do? :dunno:
Nazis and Muslims were traditional allies. Hitler said "The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France". Hitler was of the view that had the Arab invaders and aggressors won the Battle of Tours, that the West would have become Muslim. Hitler felt that German superiority and military temperment was very well suited to Islam, which taught conquest by the sword as a matter of religion. He thought that the superior Germans would have done well, and ultimately been at the head of the Islamic empire. Hitler wished he had people subscribing to a religion that believed in spreading faith by the sword, which Christianity had long since eschewed. He said, "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" (per Albert Speer https://archive.org/details/Inside_the_ ... bert_Speer ).

When dealing with Saudi Arabia, Hitler communicated the Nazis favorable policies toward Arabs because they were jointly fighting the Jews. Kalid al Hud, Saudi Special Envoy, observed that the Prophet Mohammed had acted the same way. He had driven the Jews out of Arabia. So, Brothers in Arms! Although we can't say that Islam has any animus towards the Jews nowadays - we can generalize about the right, but not Islam. They even granted the Grand Mufti "honorary Aryan status" - lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan
That was true back then, but these days, overt or covert Nazis are part of the racist, white superiority movement, most of whom are vehemently anti-muslim...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 19955
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:56 am

Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Exactly what it claim to do
Well, I am asking what you believe it claims to do - because some people are referring to a more narrow economic principle when talking about trickle-down economics, and others are referring to the broader concept of "supply side" economics.
Come off it. You know exactly what 'trickle down' represents so don't pretend It's some complicated equation or knotty economic idea that's generally poorly understood The clue is in the descriptive name given to a moral argument which maintains that securing and enhancing the wealth of the wealth maximizes the wellbeing of society because it has the effect of securing and enhancing the wealth of everybody - that every time a rich man spends a penny it trickles down onto the poor. Now you'll tell me what it really is eh?

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45875
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:37 am

He's preparing a rhetorical question right now.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 58388
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by JimC » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:24 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:56 am
Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Exactly what it claim to do
Well, I am asking what you believe it claims to do - because some people are referring to a more narrow economic principle when talking about trickle-down economics, and others are referring to the broader concept of "supply side" economics.
Come off it. You know exactly what 'trickle down' represents so don't pretend It's some complicated equation or knotty economic idea that's generally poorly understood The clue is in the descriptive name given to a moral argument which maintains that securing and enhancing the wealth of the wealth maximizes the wellbeing of society because it has the effect of securing and enhancing the wealth of everybody - that every time a rich man spends a penny it trickles down onto the poor. Now you'll tell me what it really is eh?
If one accepts at least some elements of free enterprise, then the argument can be made that corporations and entrepreneurs need at least some reasonable level of profitability and opportunity to grow if they are to increase the number of people they employ; governments that excessively tax or hinder by regulation the business world will have economic/unemployment problems. Of course, rapacious corporations with political clout will try to push this to the limit - they would prefer zero tax and no regulation. As always, there is a balance point in this continuum for any given nation, at a given point in its economic history - governments who go too far in either direction will suffer at the next election...

Typically, the argument of 'trickle down" economics is made by those with vested interests in heading in the direction corporations prefer; Trump's America seems to be a classic case...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45875
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:56 am

JimC wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:24 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:56 am
Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Exactly what it claim to do
Well, I am asking what you believe it claims to do - because some people are referring to a more narrow economic principle when talking about trickle-down economics, and others are referring to the broader concept of "supply side" economics.
Come off it. You know exactly what 'trickle down' represents so don't pretend It's some complicated equation or knotty economic idea that's generally poorly understood The clue is in the descriptive name given to a moral argument which maintains that securing and enhancing the wealth of the wealth maximizes the wellbeing of society because it has the effect of securing and enhancing the wealth of everybody - that every time a rich man spends a penny it trickles down onto the poor. Now you'll tell me what it really is eh?
If one accepts at least some elements of free enterprise, then the argument can be made that corporations and entrepreneurs need at least some reasonable level of profitability and opportunity to grow if they are to increase the number of people they employ; governments that excessively tax or hinder by regulation the business world will have economic/unemployment problems. Of course, rapacious corporations with political clout will try to push this to the limit - they would prefer zero tax and no regulation. As always, there is a balance point in this continuum for any given nation, at a given point in its economic history - governments who go too far in either direction will suffer at the next election...
[My bold] The key point being - what is "excessive"? The neoliberals like 42 et al would have us believe that current taxation levels are excessive. No evidence is ever presented to back this up, of course.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 58388
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by JimC » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:11 am

Generally, I think that current levels here and in the US are certainly not excessive, in fact they are skewed in favour of the big end of town already. Certainly the proposed corporate tax cuts via our current government are far too generous, but they try to justify them via the "trickle-down" effect...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45875
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:14 am

Corporate tax cuts are more often than not justified with "we need to remain internationally competitive". The problem with this is that it's a fool's game, as it sets up a race to the bottom. No one wins in that situation. It's essentially a tragedy of the commons, with the commons being shared wealth.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 19955
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:23 am

As the GOP tax cut has shown, when you boost the incomes of the wealthy they tend to hoard it in assets rather than spend it in the economy - trickles up rather than down.
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:24 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:56 am
Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Exactly what it claim to do
Well, I am asking what you believe it claims to do - because some people are referring to a more narrow economic principle when talking about trickle-down economics, and others are referring to the broader concept of "supply side" economics.
Come off it. You know exactly what 'trickle down' represents so don't pretend It's some complicated equation or knotty economic idea that's generally poorly understood
The question can't be addressed until you define your term and state what it is you think it's supposed to do. Because, quite often, people who oppose a concept oppose a different description of that concept than the proponents. I.e., there is often a difference of opinion as to what something is, and two sides talk past each other, one a proponent of X defined as ABC, and an opponent opposing X defined as DEF.
The clue is in the descriptive name given to a moral argument which maintains that securing and enhancing the wealth of the wealth maximizes the wellbeing of society because it has the effect of securing and enhancing the wealth of everybody - that every time a rich man spends a penny it trickles down onto the poor. Now you'll tell me what it really is eh?
Trickle Down Economics started as a pejorative term for the overarching principle of Supply Side Economics, which in no way has been debunked. It works.

It really isn't about every penny a rich man spends trickling down to the poor. One of the main concepts is that if you lower taxes on businesses from say 35% to 21%, it will operate as an incentive to economic growth because businesses will have more money in hand with which to operate, expand etc. The trickle down effect is that when business and industry do well, they have to employ people, and those people then get jobs that otherwise might not be there and the companies have more money to pay employees and offer incentives to employees.

This does help maximize the well-being of society. When you live in a society where most people work for businesses, it's good that those businesses do well, so that the people who work for those businesses can also do well. When you have an expanding business and industry, employers have to compete harder for employees who can then command higher pay.

It doesn't promise the Moon or Shangri-La. It's a realistic economic theory. It's not saying everyone will be wealthy. It's that more people will do better. Now, the theory doesn't say to keep reducing taxes down to zero. To argue for or against these theories based on some notion of absolutes -- like "oh, if you think reducing taxes makes the economy better, let's reduce it to zero!" -- that ignores the reality that for a capitalist economy to survive, a government/state is required, and that costs money. So, somehow, money must be raised, so we can talk about eliminating the income tax, but somehow in that case, money must be raised elsewhere.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:23 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:23 am
As the GOP tax cut has shown, when you boost the incomes of the wealthy they tend to hoard it in assets rather than spend it in the economy - trickles up rather than down.
That isn't accurate - it's not "hoarded." Even if money sits in a bank account, it is working for the economy - more money to lend out - business loans, home loans, you name it. If they buy a new building with it, that's economic activity. If they buy other assets with it, it's more energy in the economy. They aren't taking cash and putting it in mattresses.

The trickle down aspect of supply side economics is not a one-for-one "if you give a rich person a dollar, he'll spend X% of it on stuff that helps poor people." It's the notion that if businesses can operate with lower taxes and less costly and burdensome regulation, they can do more business, and doing more business employs more people, sells/buys more stuff, and overall helps strengthen the private sector economy.

Unless a person is a business owner, he or she tends to be employed by a business. An evil "corporation" (or partnership, or LLC, or other kind of entity). Part of this is just common sense - if you place taxes which are tough for a company to pay, and if you impose regulations that make it more time consuming, difficult and expensive to do business, then then it's like taking a marathon runner and putting a weight belt on him and telling him to run the race. If it is just a few ounces of weight, he'll probably still be able to finish, and not too too much slower. As the weight gets heavier, though, obviously it will have more of an impact on the ability of the runner to keep running.

If the burden gets high enough, the runner will no longer want to run, which will mean that he won't employ his trainer, and he won't pay the entrance fee, and he won't buy the same shoes and clothing (or as much of it), and he won't do all the other things connected with being a competitor in that arena. As such, the negative impacts of the burdens placed on him "trickle down" throughout his involvement in the sport. And, if such weights are placed on all runners, then the newer and weaker runners will tend to drop out first, leaving the hardier, tougher and stronger runners to keep participating. Eventually, enough weight will kill the sport altogether.

A business operates like that. I've run them. I can tell you. I got a start many years ago when I was single and much braver. You start on a shoestring, but you have to buy office space, equipment, supplies, etc., a cost. You have to pay for all the compliance costs - corporate formation, filing fees, registration with state/county governments, and they all have their hand out. Annual fee here. Estimated taxes. License fees. You name it - each one is a little weight placed on a runner. Add another one - say a regulatory requirement that costs another $X annually to comply - maybe have to pay an accountant, maybe a worker to handle the compliance paperwork - that's an expense. If you're small, just getting off the ground, living hand to mouth, each little weight hurts.

Then try to get to the point of being able to hire an employee! Oh, my. That's a daring moment. Do you have the regular income? Are customers going to keep paying so that you will have that employee's wages every pay day? Can't screw around with that. Employees get paid first. It's a misdemeanor to miss their payday. And, then payroll taxes -- federal, state, FICA, the rest, unemployment insurance, workers comp -- increase these items or some of them, and it's another weight added to the runner.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Here's an article about how the CBO report implicitly acknowledges that the Trump tax cuts and deregulation spurred unexpected growth which the CBO had not previously taken into account in its projections, and the massive benefit to the economy of the tax cuts is benefitting everyone top to bottom -- https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... hemselves/
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests