Does trickle down economics work?

A leftist invented that term as a mockery. Neoliberals just called it supply-side.

No, because with Jews you lose.

Who fucking knows? Economic history isn't a very predictable thing, the only thing that can be seen are results right now, supply side economics worked well for what seemed to be it's main goal (cutting inflation)

Does monetarism work?

Having nothing to do with trickle-down-economics for their success.

>trickle down economics
A made up bullshit term invented by his opponents.

yes, the supply siders were always right.

(((((((trickle down))))))))

Supply side memeonomics is limited to very specific situations. In general, it is essentially Voodoo economics, unless you have a shortage of aggregate supply it’s less than useless idiocy that will make the poor poorer, the rich richer, and your country in increasing mountains of debt as you frantically cut taxes to produce growth to replace the revenue you lost by cutting taxes because some moron named Arthur Laffer drew up a curve on a napkin and without any empirical testing it became the holy grail of conservativism.

Yes. People on Earth are doing much better than 40 years ago because companies are providing more jobs and better standards of living.

But thats how it works

No.
There is no incentive for the trickle.

Man you blew your "my tendies fund has ran out" frustration load all in one post, freindo.

Cutting that ridiculously high corporate tax rate the US has certainly is a good idea.

>DUDE JUST PRINT MORE MONEY LMAO

>thery that doesn't exist

Are you a mercantilist or keynesian?

t. Peter Peterson with trips

How to spot a leftist.

Reaganomics is the proper term.

Congressional Budget Office very clearly said that it’s going to increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion$.

Source :
google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/362905-cbo-senate-tax-bill-increases-deficit-by-14-trillion?amp

Haha How Is Poverty Real Haha Just Print Money Haha Nigga Just Counterfeit Money Haha

Supply side economics is a specific solution for a specific problem. Trying to apply that solution to every economic problem will just fuck you up worse than before.

Kansas is in a really shitty spot because of their recent attempt at it.

Now you could argue they didnt cut spending as much as they "should" have but there was no real economic growth in that state. They cut taxes and with no growth, the promised increase in wealth never materialized.

purely a meme

Never has worked, Rich white people don't spend more they just put extra in the bank.

Those Rapper Niggas on the other hand are happy to spend till they go bankrupt

Only small companies pay it anyway. You could lower it but only if you shut down all the loopholes big corps use to avoid paying a single dime.

It can provide short term economic growth but it runs out of steam because the spending cuts take money out of the pockets of the middle and lower class and if they're not spending it's bad for the economy

That defies the laws of gravity. Trickle down works because of gravity.

If you give millions of dollars to the 1%, it’s just going to go into a Cayman Islands bank account. Or a SuperPAC.

But wealth flows towards the bigger mass of wealth in trickle down, hence moving upward.

No, because if you already earn a lot of money, you are not at the stage where you are creating wealth.
Sure, you could be, via investment or making companies, or even just funding other people doing that.
But the reality is that most do not do that, so Tax Relief to the rich does fuck all.
Tax relief for investors could be beneficial, or it could just lead to massive amounts of shell companies, used to offload tax burden.

Its a weird opposite of horse-and-sparrow theory, which is really just
1. Investments come in via expansion(i.e Settling anything between the 2 US coasts)
2. This creates MASSIVE wealth distribution
Or
1. Government takes all the tax
2. Tax has to be spent somewhere, so there is growth
3. Insert Chinese folk music, early Cold War or 1930s for USA

No.
Panama papers and other leaks prove they just stuff it overseas
Even if we lowered they'd still go to the lower or easily hide able one elsewhere

"down" is actually into the big $$$ pools due to the financial gravitational force called "interest"

yes dumbass, that is what I said.
The bigger mass of money attracts even more money due to it's higher proportionate mass.

Though it quite on point.
There is trickle down. Golden drops trickle down from the rich ro middle class and lower.

Only people mistake that for money.

One could argue that big corps are actually getting negative taxes.
As is taxpayer pays them for their fuckups.

This. You can just fuck it and pay taxes to them instead. And still they will give jackshit back.

I have a question. Why do we have welfare? If we're gonna pay people while they're unemployed, why not have the government give them a job during that time? At least they're doing something productive until they get a better job then.

*builds a dam*

We literally did this though

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

Supply-Side economics is literally just a bunch of meaningless fluff. The actual neat thing that Reagan did to improve the economy was trick people in to believing supply-side economics works, and an economy which thinks its good then becomes good.

Technological innovation and societal efficiency has always been the only thing that increases capital without taking capital. The biggest part of Reagan’s overall philosophy both as a Governor and a President wasn’t so much that you just cut taxes and spending and BAM everyone will be rich. He actually raised taxes multiple times. It was centered around the idea that the economy is more like a human than a robot, and you’d find more success in making it work by having Americans feel good about themselves telling commie jokes on TV and shouting at the world that THIS is the place you want to be than you will by autistically trying to control it.

It’s that rediscovered national pride and hands off government approach which largely fueled a wave of venture capital in to the state of California right before the Tech boom, and the 90s peak of American prosperity created when Boomers were inspired to go out and work, start a family, and live the American dream.

The highest economic peaks in the US — the 20s, 50s, and the 90s — were created mainly by the fact that the American consciousness was high on life and infected by a wave of patriotism. Anyone who thinks the economy can be summerized to a nice and tidy static theory is a brainlet.

>and an economy which thinks its good then becomes good.

This. No one policy or tax rate fixes it destroys economies. Its peoples willingness to invest in new factories and ventures that create jobs. Simply having low taxes doesn't do that if the job creators don't think that there will be profitable returns for thier investments because the business climate is still too negative over all.

Really, just telling people it will get better starts a trickle UP and trickle OUT improvement of the economy. Let me explain.

If the president says everything is gonna be better, the common person wants to believe this. They are thus slightly more likely to worry a little less about spending some of their money on a better home, a new car, even consumer goods. They believe that things will get better, more accurately they desperately want to believe it so they go out and spend hoping it comes true. The next step is the business owners and job creator and executives of all the industries see this subtle up tick of optimism coming from the consumer public and decide its slightly less risky to invest in that new machine /worker/factory/IPO whatever. This in turn leads to more jobs/opportunity and more spending power that feeds back into the commercial industry as more purchases. Thus more optimism. Thus the trickle Up and Out.

Negative outlook is toxic and is a communicable mental illness that irrationally destroys economies. Literally people need to just spend and invest and not worry about (((Recession))).

The major point of welfare is that you pay people when they're UNABLE to work, and they pay back when they're able.

Then what does do with the "Permanently Disabled" 24 year olds who have incurable anxiety issues and don't work? When are they going to pay it back when they can?

Yes, of course it does, thats why people in rich countries live in better conditions than in poor countries.

It's still cheaper than putting all the crazies in asylums or dealing with the constant burden that homeless put on emergency rooms, paramedics, and cops.

With any system, there'll be people screwing you over, but what we have now is a relatively cost-effective one.

It might be cost effective but its terribly discouraging to honest hard working people to know that they have to pay taxes to support people who don't want to work. Its a violation of very deeply held principles of fairness. This violation of public trust has a degrading effect on over all social welfare as it encourages more abuse and creates class/cultural animosity between those who work hard and expect others to as well and those who like to make excuses for people that could find some way to support themselves if they tried.

The end result is more clashing cultures, more violent protest/counter protest. Eventually collapse of the political order by radicalization as both sides see winner take all scenarios as the only end game. Thus a descent to Bolshevism or a return to distinctly cruel self sufficiency with no safety net where its entirely fend for yourself.

The problem isn't welfare. Its the attitude that it is a universal unquestionable right that leads to abuse.

great theory except for the fact that countries with strong welfare are stable and countries with no welfare (USA) are erupting because of class struggles

USA has welfare, see

The US has a health care system too, doesn't mean its effective.

>It might be cost effective but its terribly discouraging to honest hard working people to know that they have to pay taxes to support people who don't want to work.
True, but the sad thing is that many don't realize that average middle class people are also supporting a bunch of rich people who don't work. Not through taxes so much - since rich people tend to pay a higher tax rate than middle class people - but through holding together the very society that rich people absolutely require the existence of in order to be rich in the first place. No cops or private security to protect the rich? They wouldn't be rich for long. No farmers growing food? The rich people's money wouldn't mean much. Etc.

Obviously not, capital naturally accumulates, big piles of money are better at turning themselves into bigger piles than smaller ones. Allowing them to grow unrestricted simply leads to the wealth divide growing and can occasionaly lead to the poor being better off but thats just a nice side effect that sometimes happens

I prefer voodoo economics

>its terribly discouraging to honest hard working people to know that they have to pay taxes to support people who don't want to work

I pay rent to live in my current house, and that money goes to an old retired man who doesn't want to work so he rents out houses.

Way I see it, taxes are just me paying rent to my country, and it's not even that much out of my paycheck.

>There is a reason why EVERY president since REgan has tried to keep it going in one form or another.
>implying that American presidents always have the best of intentions for their citizens

Life ain't fair kiddo and the only two alternative solutions are genocide and mass poverty

He had to raise taxes but his admnistration had to admit it wasn't sustainable and he himself concluded his legacy would be a fuckhuge debt.

Not for long.

Economics is way easier than people think
Just raise taxes on the rich
Lower taxes on companies and make them pay obscene amounts of money if they want to leave

This way, the rich's personal wealth that sits in banks and hedge funds all day can benefit the country and people who who need it while jobs and innovation boom.
Prove me wrong.

>wealth is not a finite resource
how does it feel to be a living meme?

Except plenty of that money goes to swaying politicians against such a setup.

Everything wrong with Kansas has to do with it being Kansas, not with their tax policies.

It was always a worthless flyover wasteland and always will be.

Anybody that disagrees with the phrase "wealth is created" is economically illiterate. The rest of this post is wrong, tho.

Wealth is not a finite resource.

There isn't a fixed supply of most goods and services. Some are plentiful already, but, most importantly, others can become less scarce as technology and trade networks develop. Only meme commodities like gold are (kinda) fixed and even then their value isn't stable. When the Baron Rothschild leaned back from the gold business, it's price dropped quite a bit, believe me.

Also, there is some good to be said for Smith's thinking. If you have item A, and I have item B, and we voluntarily agree to trade these items, then it stands to reason we both prefer the new arrangement and valued our subsequent situation more than the previous one - from this we can infer that value (which is conferred by each person's desire for each item) was created or added to the world.

Money!=wealth. Simpletons.
no.
It is one of those things that sound right but take a really long aurgument to explain why it is wrong. Longer than you could post here

Countries with a strong ethnic identity are stable. Welfare doesn’t create distrust when the people taking it look and think like your brother. You realize it is just hard times for them, it doesn’t work when most of it goes to immigrats with different cultural views toward the role of government than you have.
^issues like this, and there are a lot of them is why you should always distrust economic models such of the type as as r^2-w/rd =P'2 and people like the imf. There is always unknowns and cultural and political issues that are not quantifyable. This is why every long term economic modal prediction has been wrong
>the "Permanently Disabled" 24 year olds who have incurable anxiety issues and don't work?
Welfare queens were always mostly propaganda and don’t exsist in large numbers

Trickle down or SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS if you want to be sticky about it absolutely does not work and those who espouse that it does do not understand economics. This includes pundits and the so called advisers employed by republican officials. It turns out economics are actually more complex than people think, and further more there is suppression of "downers" who call out crises before they happen in the economic field. We saw this before the housing bubble burst - a few people were predicting it YEARS in advanced but they were waved off as doom-sayers, and then when it did happen their advice on how to fix it was ignored AGAIN.

The reason people think Trickle Down works is from a fundamental misreading of the metrics they use to track economic growth - Unemployment, GDP, and the DOW.

Unemployment is a wholly inaccurate number based on how they measure it, taking into account part time or temporary positions as "employed" and not counting those currently not seeking a job as unemployed. It does not mean what people think it means, and frankly is useless as a measuring stick for economic health.

the GDP counts both our income AND our *debt*, which means that it increases even when we LOSE money because debt is up. When tax cuts raise our debt (and they always do), it increases the GDP.

DOW is based on the performance of the companies themselves (as well as speculation), and they immediately and discernably benefit when their taxes are cut - but this does not translate to more jobs or wealth. Most often, Companies will consolidate or buy up smaller outfits, slash their employment, and logistically re-align or replace them with temporary or newer hire jobs at a lower pay scale.

Reaganomics do not work. At all. And this idea that cutting taxes creates jobs is a huge fucking meme

>rich people are extremely, abnormally rich
>poor people are their literal slaves
>"trickle down """""""""""""""""""""economics"""""""""""""""

Does it "work"? It sure does.
The same way communism, jountas and literal hell "works".

You do understand trickle down economics is actually a joke coined by left wingers right?

Of course it doesn't work because a) It doesn't exist, b) no serious economist ever said it existed or defended it.

But banks lend that money out for mortgages and business loans, thus contributing to economic growth.

kek i heard that people tried to put the blame it on the people who called out before the crises saying that they 'jinxed' it or that they made a prophecy of sorts

Wrong, read 'What's the Matter With Kansas'

Bill Clinton raised the taxes on the wealthy to levels not far from pre-Reagan era in 93.

90-92 was spent in recession though

The US corporate tax rate wasn't effectively as high as it seemed, as interests could be deduced, which left the actual rate 10% lower than on paper, and benefited highly leveraged business. Interest elsewhere largely isn't deductible.

That would be a good thing for the economy, if availability of capital was scarse. But it never really was: the banks weren't limited by their regulated safety deposits, but by the lack of projects to invest in.

You eventually run out of other people's livelihoods.

Depends on what do you mean with "working". It does fulfill its primary function, and that is stimulating growth.

Now the question how many people participate in this new growth, and here's the kicker that leftists will never understand. Trickle down does not mean that a fairy will come and give you some wealth. It means there are more opportunities for you now to become wealthy. If you sit and wait for wealth to find you, you will lose. If you actively try to find wealth, chances are much higher now you will win.

Why do so many people think of Economics as some sort of science? Basically you have an ideology, you write some ideas and create some graphics to support that idea, the most sad case is the Austrian School of Memeconomics, the guys just lay down and invent concepts out of thin air, it's Psychoanalysis tier.

Calling it 'trickle-down' unironically would be like unironically calling the ACA 'Comrade Obama's First Four Year Plan'. It was a derisive nickname made up by the left.

Kanasn here, look I know the state is known to be shit but under brownback its even shittier

>there is suppression of "downers" who call out crises before they happen
Yeah but sometimes those "downers" are just broken clocks that luckily got right for once and have predicted 100 crashes before they got that one right

Welfare queens do live but mostly in black communities. There's a perverse incentive where you make more money not working IF you're a single mother female with a bunch of kids.

It's government creating a dysgenic system.

Ha ha you're a funny man. The point of welfare is to give politicians the ability to give favors to their district in the form of social worker jobs and be able to say to the emotional populists "Look, we're giving money to the poor and needy!".

Meanwhile most people eat a shitty diet that ensures that they'll have to be part of the medico-insurance complex where their lack of health means an increase in relative wealth for insurance agencies and hospital.

The more you look into the vast system of corrupt incentives we have in America, the more I want to run north before the explosive suicide of America happens.

Not to mention the laughable dynamic where they cut off essential funding to you IF YOU GET A JOB.

It's fucking retarded and counteracts the motivation to find a job. It's fucking retarded. It's fucking retarded. I needed to say that three times.

>just put extra in the bank
Banks move the money in the form of debt.Banks having a lot of cash improves substantially the availability of credit.

>Blah you don't know shit

I was homeless for two years in the hellhole known as Los Angeles and had to go to the shittiest welfare office by skid row. You walk in and you see the silent suicide of anything noble or motivating in man.

And of course they'll give you aid but as soon as you try saving up so you have a buffer from being peniless and homeless, they take the benefit away.

It's a system that keeps its dependents dependent on the system and introduces perverse incentives against working unless you can find a job that pays under the table.

>2017

>Veeky Forums trying to discuss economics

OP you're better off going to stackexchange where people actually know what they're talking about

>trying to discuss economics
>Doesn't realize that how economics is implemented by various institutions is far more important than theory

Going to a welfare office and signing up for GA and SNAP (new term for food stamps) is economics.

What is the benefit of having a person who makes $30,000 a year (plus government benefits) give a $214 check and $194 worth of food stamps to a person?

What is the benefit of enabling dysgenics of that same social worker giving a $1000+ check and $200+ in food stamps to a black mom with 6 children with uncertain parentage?

What is the benefit of cutting these things off when people find a job but haven't been able to save up a buffer?

That is a economics in practice. How institutions and individuals actually spend, save, and navigate the multiple spheres in which trading, of some sort, happens.