Trickle down or trickle up economics?

[Inkstain82]

I'm talking about the redistribution from a high achiever to a low achiever. I see things as black and white with a little bit of gray. IMO, liberals want to blend all the black and white into gray.

And what else is a standing army but redistribution of the ability to protect yourself from foreign invasion from the rich (who could pay for their own armies) to the low-achieving poor (who could not)?

Again, I think you are being too restrictive trying to paint everything as "conservative" vs. "liberal."

I'm a filthy liberal because I believe the government should be in "socialized" health care, but am I a deep conservative because I believe it should step out of higher education, which has become a jumbled, wasteful mess?

[Inkstain82]

I agree redistribution occurs through any government. So government is inherently socialistic.

Since "socialism" is a subset of "government", that statement is logically false. It's just an attempt to redefine terms, which is always pointless.

Socialism is a form of government that relies on heavy redistribution. But not all redistribution is socialist.

[KGeary]

And what else is a standing army but redistribution of the ability to protect yourself from foreign invasion from the rich (who could pay for their own armies) to the low-achieving poor (who could not)?

Again, I think you are being too restrictive trying to paint everything as "conservative" vs. "liberal."

I'm a filthy liberal because I believe the government should be in "socialized" health care, but am I a deep conservative because I believe it should step out of higher education, which has become a jumbled, wasteful mess?

That's not redistribution, it's a legitimate function of government.

And it's illogical to say they should run healthcare even though they've screwed up education when they've also screwed up every other program they've tried to run. They've already failed at the healthcare; have you seen a VA hospital lately?

[Inkstain82]

That's not redistribution, it's a legitimate function of government.

As someone who seems to love to throw around phrases such as "logical fallacy" and "illogic" with abandon, you've thrown out quite a doozy.

The fact that it is a legitimate function of government does not preclude it from being a redistribution. Nowhere in the definition of either term is there something that excludes the two from intersecting.

(edit to add: I can already see where this is going to end up: a discussion on the meaning of logic and fallacies. I can honestly say that nothing you've said in any of our discussions convinces me that you've ever actually studied logic in any way, and you appear to think that fallacy just means "something that doesn't make sense according to my opinion of the facts." I'm sure you have an equally dim view of my grasp of logic, and that's cool. So just be forewarned that I'm not going to get sucked into that discussion this time in the interest of keeping the board somewhat uncluttered and keeping the tone reasonably friendly ).

And it's illogical to say they should run healthcare even though they've screwed up education when they've also screwed up every other program they've tried to run. They've already failed at the healthcare; have you seen a VA hospital lately?

I'd say they've done a perfectly adequate job with national defense, lower education and the postal service, to name a few.

[kork13]

In an attempt to move back toward the original topic, I think there are ways to effectively use "trickle up" methods while encouraging personal responsibility. Giving individuals the support they need while requiring work in return. For example, contracts for sweeping infrastructure projects (such as I've heard proposed off and on), I think are a great idea. Construction and such are jobs that can be filled by people with minimal specialized training. They get a job with which they can support their families; society gets new roads and water mains. At the same time, it's also possible to do the whole "trickle down" thing very poorly.

[PrincessPerky]

How about neither?

What is so terrible about letting folk work and keep what they earn?

In truth there is no way a black and white form of one or the other would work. Folk need motivation and reward for work, sorry we ain't all hard working puritans, and at the same time, someone has to fund the social care. (though the extent of social care needed is highly debatable.)

[maat55]

And what else is a standing army but redistribution of the ability to protect yourself from foreign invasion from the rich (who could pay for their own armies) to the low-achieving poor (who could not)?

Again, I think you are being too restrictive trying to paint everything as "conservative" vs. "liberal."

I'm a filthy liberal because I believe the government should be in "socialized" health care, but am I a deep conservative because I believe it should step out of higher education, which has become a jumbled, wasteful mess?

I accept that you have to have a government and that it will have employees for certain needs. I disagree with National healthcare, retirement, banking and big business bailouts and tax credits(free money) for lower wage earners among other things.

Your examples are rediculous. I only believe the government should centralize the needs of the states such as: National Defense, infrastructure and certain regulations.

Higher education is only one of the massive blunders of government.

[maat55]

I'd say they've done a perfectly adequate job with national defense, lower education and the postal service, to name a few.

National defense is stellar because we throw more money at it and mostly because american soldiers are more determined than any other army.

Our cost and results per student are nowhere near stellar in the world.

[feh]

Not punishing corporations and the wealthy strengthens the economy, which benefits everyone.

The disparity between the poor and the wealthy has nothing to do with economics.

Strong argument.

[Inkstain82]

How about neither?

What is so terrible about letting folk work and keep what they earn?

In truth there is no way a black and white form of one or the other would work. Folk need motivation and reward for work, sorry we ain't all hard working puritans, and at the same time, someone has to fund the social care. (though the extent of social care needed is highly debatable.)

Neither is essentially a feudal system.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

If all people were paid their due, there would be fewer working poor. Yes, the higher levels of a corporation might not make as much money as they do now and profits to be distributed or reinvested might slow, but the income disparity would not be so great. I don't think we have to be talking about redistribution through taxes and government programs. If pay were not so out of whack to start with, there would be less call for redistribution.

[tripods68]

You'll have to define "success" first, and for whom.

One thing is clear, however: the Reagan mantra of "cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations will benefit everyone" is a load of crap. Whether he genuinely believed it would work, or if it was just a confidence game, I do not know. But it's easy to see that the disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this country has exploded over the last 25 years.

This is CROP!

It was the "trickle down" economics that brought this country back from high taxes, high inflation to the booming economy in the late 80s. Whatever you might not believe, it was Reaganomics who created 21 million jobs.

Reagan's Economic policy had four major policy objectives:
(1) reduce the growth of government spending,
(2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital,
(3) reduce regulation, and
(4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply.

You have to remember, the top marginal tax rate on individual income was reduced from 70% to 28%. The corporate income tax rate was reduced from 48% to 34%.

At the end of his term, the Economic conditions also improved. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0% in 1980 to 5.4% in 1998. The inflation rate declined from 10.4% in 1980 to 4.2% in 1988. The US economy had experience the longest peactime expansion ever. The "stagflation" and "malaise" that plaqued the US economy from 1973 through 1980 were transformed by the Reagan economic program into sustained period of higher growth and lower inflation.

While Reagan left all the social welfare programs untouched primarily due to Democratic controlled Congress. I agree the rich got richer and the poor got poorer but that's not because what Reagan did. The incentives still resides to willing individuals to come out of poverty, not government.

Your point is well taken, but what's the incentive for anyone to be creative if your hard-work is punished by paying higher taxes? It was the so-called "Voodoo Economics" that freed this economy.


I suggest you read Lawrence B. Linsey: The Growth Experiment: How the New Tax policy is Transforming the US Economy or the Niskanen's book, Reagnomics.

[sweeps]

I suggest you read Lawrence B. Linsey: The Growth Experiment: How the New Tax policy is Transforming the US Economy or the Niskanen's book, Reagnomics.

The problem is people can twist the numbers however they like. Tax policies do not work in a vacuum. There are many many external variables that affect the economy. We will never really know who is right.

(Perhaps we are all right, or all wrong, for that matter. What if supply-side fiscal policy is appropriate in some circumstances and demand-side fiscal policy is appropriate in other circumstances. Or what if these policies have a negligent effect on the economy and things would've turned out exactly the way they did anyway.)

Edited to add: Note that I'm talking on a macroeconomic scale. At the micro level, tax policy changes have clear winners and losers, at least in the short run.

[feh]

The problem is people can twist the numbers however they like. Tax policies do not work in a vacuum. There are many many external variables that affect the economy.

Agreed.

Tripod - I don't have the time or the energy to rebut your post. The three charts I would post (if I had time) would be median income, income of the top 5% and the national debt over the last 25 years.

There's been much growth the last 25 years, but virtually all the benefits have gone to the wealthy. Which gets back to my original point - success from whose perspective?

[KGeary]

If all people were paid their due, there would be fewer working poor. Yes, the higher levels of a corporation might not make as much money as they do now and profits to be distributed or reinvested might slow, but the income disparity would not be so great. I don't think we have to be talking about redistribution through taxes and government programs. If pay were not so out of whack to start with, there would be less call for redistribution.

Pay isn't out of whack, that's impossible. Pay can never be out of whack in a free market. That statement is inherently false.

If an employer doesn't pay a competitive wage, then don't work there. If NO companies are willing to pay you more, it's because you're not qualified to receive the higher wage; in other words, you're not worth enough to them. That's not their fault, that's your fault.

The markets have had decades to even this out. The minimum wage set by the government is what throws the market out of whack. Companies pay what employees are worth, period. Competition between companies has leveled out the pay to exactly what it should be. Saying that companies pay too low is ignorant; I'd be far more inclined to say that workers aren't worth what they should be.