What you do think is the number one issue facing us at the moment?

It's not an economic term and it is a pejorative term and that doesn't change because David Stockman used it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I'm concerned with the war on Ukraine.

Change "you" to "one" if that makes it clearer.

Yes, it should take priority. The government can do more than one thing but unless the debt problem is made better, nothing else is going to be done realistically. Other than outlawing slavery and the various discriminations, the governmentment doesn't really "solve" pressing social issues anyway.

You don't solve poverty by debasing the currency.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry. If one of the architects of the plan calls it trickle down, it's trickle down. Since he implemented it, his opinion counts more than yours.

Your claim is akin to saying there's no such economic system called socialism because people use it as a pejorative to attack other people.

 

No, it doesn't. He also didn't name it. He just used that term. Appeal to authority isn't a winning tactic.

No, socialism is an economic term and form. "Trickle down" isn't.

What you care calling "trickle down" down does have an effect. It's a myth that it doesn't. It's a matter of diminishing returns. If the tax rate is 90% it has a greater effect. If the tax rate is 38% it has less of an effect. It still have an effect however. That's just a supply side description. Just as increasing taxes has an effect but that too has diminishing returns.

There is no real debate here even though you apparently think otherwise. You are trying to use supply side descriptions for more than they were intended to convey.

 

Well, and protecting people from foreign invaders. And solving the problem of disease and pestilence caused by lack of sanitation. And solving the problem of people and businesses who want to move about the country. And the problem of crime. And the problem of lack of education. The government does a lot here. And that has to be paid for. Yes, we can definitely make it more efficient, and cut spending. But that's not the main goal. The goal is to have a government that supports, defends and provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States via taxation, lawmaking and regulation - as economically as possible.

Consider a car company. What is the car company's primary goal? To make cars and sell them at a profit. If a car company decides that its #1 goal is to cut expenses, that's easy - close plants, lay people off and stop buying materials. But that quickly leads them to not being a car company any more.

 

This is a weak argument. It's an absolutist approach. No one is arguing that we need no government. We've always had a government. We haven't always had a debt greater than our GDP.

 

"You're a socialist" is a pejorative used universally by conservatives. Therefore by your definition, it's not an economic term, it's a pejorative.

Now, if you insist that it is indeed an economic term because it describes an approach to economics, fair enough. Just like trickle down.

It absolutely does. It makes the rich much richer, and tends to improve overall GDP. It just doesn't get to the bottom levels of society.

 

Yep. Times change. We should prioritize solving our problems, and should do so as economically as possible. Our debt was considerably greater than our GDP during and after World War II; we survived that, as well.

 

No, that isn't "by my definition"

No, "trickle down" isn't an economic term. It's a commentary and it's usually wrongly applied and used.

So taking someone's money makes them richer...OK?
Improves overall GDP...OK. Good.
Doesn't get to the bottom levels of society. Not much does. That's why it's the bottom. There is plenty of government spending and debt that does end up there.

You can't expect not taking someone's money to directly get to the bottom. If the economy improves then it improves for everyone unless they have some other issues.

 

Another weak argument. This isn't a time of war and the economy doesn't need stimulating.

You can't prioritize when you have no money. I also see no signs of "prioritizing". I don't even see signs of good decision making.

It's also not true that "our debt was considerably greater than our GDP during and after WWII". It wasn't. It's now 121%. The peak in WWII was 109% from 42%. It was 25% by 1975.

It's out of control now.

 

No, I'm not as literal when I speak as you are (apparently).

It came about after the Great Depression and it was never meant to fully fund retirement nor was it meant to be permanent nor was it properly set up for that to happen. It relies on one generation paying for another generation even if the two groups are of different sizes.

However, I do think at this point that it is and should be permanent. Therefore it should be set up so that can happen. The generation that pays in, sees that money invested and that's what it gets out (my solution). I also wouldn't "invest" in government Treasuries which is just more government debt.

If a private company did that it would rightly get called a scam.

That's the way excessive debt works...until it doesn't. You could say that about every country with hyperinflation. Of course it would take longer for that to happen in the US and hopefully it doesn't get to that point but it is going to get to the "problem" level in probably the next 10 years, IMO.

I'm concerned because I'm not an idiot. You know I don't want Musk running the government so why raise that? You know that Bitcoin has nothing to do with this, so why raise that? Is this the best you can do regarding a serious discussion?

Those who have some assets have more to lose than those without. The government has its role to play but unless one wants a nanny state (some do) there is a limit. You also need to have those running the government who have some concern about cost as well as spending. Otherwise, it's just too easy, isn't it?

 

To be clear: "trickle down" is a pejorative term applied to supply-side economics. It is pejorative in as much as it highlights, and is intended to highlight, the negative view of the policies as being beneficial to the rich with only a trickle (or "leak", as it was once described in the 19th century) reaching the lower classes - i.e. that the policies disproportionately aid the already well-off, albeit with the overall aim of raising standards for all.
Because the metaphor is aimed at the perceived negative aspect of such supply-side policies, the term is pejorative. However, it is a term that seems more increasingly to simply be used synonymously with "supply-side", with no intended pejorative intent, which is unfortunate as it only serves to give people who don't really know any better a somewhat jaundiced view of the actual policies.
Sure, some policies (supply-side or otherwise) may be genuinely set up to be "trickle-down": the UK dropped the £60k p.a. maximum contribution one could make to one's pension pot because they thought highly-paid doctors were retiring early as a result of current policies... this change, imo, was clearly a policy disproportionately aimed at the already-wealthy with the aim of the benefit "trickling down" to the masses (through the doctors remaining in work). And it hasn't really worked to do anything other than benefit those doctors who weren't retiring early anyway.

This makes "trickle down" being pejorative distinct from simply using an existing term as pejorative, such as "socialist", which has an original non-pejorative usage and has gained a pejorative usage due to, among other things, association with the more extreme elements thereof.


Now, does supply-side economics work? That's a question, indeed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It describes an ASPECT of supply side economics, which is that if you make the rich richer, that money will trickle down to the less rich. It was initially intended as a positive; wealth trickling down to everyone was seen as a good thing, with graphics showing how (for example) if you pour wine into a cup at the top of a stack, it will trickle down and fill the bottom ones as well as long as you have enough wine - and supply side economics, so the argument goes, gives you a lot of wine to work with. Since then it has often been used as a pejorative because it doesn't work.

 

It's not accurate to say "it doesn't work".

 

Billvon, if you refer to something by a perceived negative aspect of that thing, then that is using that negative as a pejorative.
It is like referring to certain cars as "gas guzzlers". That they guzzle gas is an ASPECT of those cars, but it is still using it as a pejorative, as you are deliberately referring to them by reference to their perceived negative aspect.

By referring to supply side economics as "trickle-down" is similarly pejorative, as it is describing the whole in terms of a perceived negative aspect, of the disproportionate benefit to the wealthy. Pejorative.

Simples.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Exactly how have you "noticed"?

 

Have I noticed that policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy (i.e. trickle-down) have disproportionately benefitted the wealthy? Note that, as written, you're simply offering a tautology. One doesn't need to "notice" such things as they can be established by reason alone. Law of identity, logical truths, and all that funky stuff. For example: gas-guzzling cars are cars that guzzle gas. X = X. Note that such tautologies don't actually say anything useful beyond asserting their own identity.