Trickle down or trickle up economics?

[KGeary]

Hmm. Well, yeah, I suppose that's fine if the forum admins will allow it. Elsewhere, you can get banned if you keep it up, because this sort of "forum pollution" tends to drive decent people away.

Of course, accusations of naivete is hardly a substantive rebuttal. It practically ruins one's own credibility. So, perhaps not much needs to be done here.

You disagree with me and instead of trying to refute what I say, you try to silence me.

Typical.

Keep up the good work Fidel.

[tripods68]

Hmm. Well, yeah, I suppose that's fine if the forum admins will allow it. Elsewhere, you can get banned if you keep it up, because this sort of "forum pollution" tends to drive decent people away.

Of course, accusations of naivete is hardly a substantive rebuttal. It practically ruins one's own credibility. So, perhaps not much needs to be done here.

BA - I agree with you. You can't call someone is stupid, or naive. But you can challenge someone's statement to be naive or even stupid if you can prove your point. There's the difference.

It think Jeffrey would I agree with me, unless i'm proven to be incorrect

[Broken Arrow]

BA - I agree with you. You can't call someone is stupid, or naive. But you can challenge someone's statement to be naive or even stupid if you can prove your point. There's the difference.

It think Jeffrey would I agree with me, unless i'm proven to be incorrect

Sadly, that is correct. I believe Jeffrey did say that once.

Though I am no longer sure because he's on my ignore list and have no interest in un-ignoring him, I was under the impression that he was implying the author of these comments are naive, not the comments themselves.

Either way, to even make derogatory comments like these is trolling in my book. And thus, he will remained ignored on my list.

[GrimJack]

Oh please. You're so full of it. Go take an economics class.

Ad hominem attacks are not helpful in any discusion. You did not answer one single point I made, "full of it" and "take a class" are not valid arguments. I understand your desire to just 'blow off' people who disagree with you but it does not leave much room for discussion.

[GrimJack]

"Bankers generally opposed CRA as an unnecessary measure that could adversely affect business decisions by mandating credit allocation and cause safety and soundness problems by forcing institutions to make excessively risky
loans."

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96023.pdf

Why don't you look up Community Reinvestment Act on Google. Look at all the regulatory bodies and bills that have been screwing with and screwing up the market system and have created the mess we're in now.

I was wondering when you would bring up the CRA - that has been one of the right-wing<nut> arguments with no basis in reality. There is not one bank that adheres to the CRA that is in any financial difficulties because of the CRA. This should be easy for you if you are correct - you should be able to find one bank that went under due to CRA.

While you're there, look up Sarbanes-Oxley; another failed attempt at regulation by the nanny state.

Well, I just went there and wonder what you see that is a problem. I linked to a summary location because I am pretty sure that is as much that is needed here. You think that injecting honesty, honest reporting, auditing, and punishment for cheating are a bad thing, I would have to guess.

Ha! That statement is naive at best.

support your perception of the naivety of that statement

And nobody forced FICO to develop a credit score that lenders use that's based solely on debt and debt to income ratios and not based on real indicators of financial responsibility.

This statement leads me to believe that you have no idea who or what company produces the FICO score and how they come up with it.

So what? Nobody forced the stupid consumers to sign on the dotted line either. When is anyone in this country going to start being accountable for their own stupid actions? Why is it always someone elses fault? Only a moron gets a NINJA loan or a sub-prime loan and the government wanted it that way with their CRA plan.

Purely a rant full of ad hominem attacks that is not worth any consideration.

Accept it. Government doesn't help anything. It never has and it never will. The best type of government is a limited government.

Summary of a personal philosophy, making a statement with no references with self-contradictory content.

Really? You're so naive.

Another ad hominem attack with no references.

You do not argue your position very well. Here are a couple of site to help you keep from making errors in logic - Logical Fallacies and Common Fallacies

[Inkstain82]

*thought better of argumentative tone*

[jIM_Ohio]

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.

The disturbing thing is how many middle class folks still believe trickle-down is a good idea. I suggest reading "What's the Matter with Kansas" for more information.

I got as far as response 1 and had to chime in.

Depends on what you attribute the "gap" to. I think the poor have gotten lazier over the last 20-40 years, and think this laziness has more to do with the wage gap than any taxation or lack of on the richest of the rich.

[jIM_Ohio]

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.

Tax credits are NOT free money.
They lower a person's tax liability dollar for dollar (If I have a $9000 tax bill and $2000 worth of child tax credits, my new tax liability is $7000).

Most tax credits cannot reduce a tax liability to less than zero (meaning if I had a $1500 tax liability and had $2000 in tax credits, I now have a ZERO tax liability- depending on the type of tax credit, the $500 is probably non refundable and lost).

Tax credits are good if they are NON REFUNDABLE because it then requires a tax liability exist before they can be applied.

[jIM_Ohio]

I am a mathematics teacher in Oregon and they require a master's degree. I work in a rural school and as a result make a little over $30,000 a year. Maybe all rural school teachers in Oregon should just realize that the market has told us we are not worth it and either are their children. Instead we should all abandon the children and let them get their education from private schools where the teachers are paid far better. Those children who can't afford private school cannot blame their lack of education on the state but instead should blame themselves for not working hard enough.

Couple of things- Teachers where I live do not pay into SS- do you? if not, you have a 6% raise (6.2% actually) relative to anyone else making 30k per year.

Second thing- have you tried to land a higher paying teaching job somewhere else? Around 5-10 years ago the Buffalo teachers went on striker. The average wage of the striking teacher was north of 100k.

[jIM_Ohio]

Page 5 and 6 show some posts with posters attacking other posters and name calling. Before that the conversation was constructive.

Sorry for the late inclusion into a good thread. Death in the family last week kept me out 5 days... I am back.

Free market is good if the government lets the free market be free. For example would it really be a bad thing if Ford and GM went out of business?

sure short term lots of people lose jobs. But the demand for cars is still there. Some can come along and build a car for cheaper and create a new business.

My college degree bears GMs name- that is right at one point GM actually had its own university. Wasteful spending like this tell me a company which makes bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business.

Unions are generally a bad thing unless they have a vested interest in keeping a company profitable. Gm and Ford will probably trace their cost increases to the Union when history writes the book 20 years from now on the auto industry. But at same time unions were needed 100 years ago because conditions for workers were not good, and the average worker was not protected- safety, vacations and similar issues are needed for a solid middle class which our economy needs.

Is a union needed for Microsoft employees?
Is a union needed for automotive employees?
Is a union needed for government employees?
Is a union needed for miners?

Each occupation has unique challenges. Unions are not "all bad", but IMO they have a time and place in the business cycle and are not a lifetime requirement for a given company and that companies business cycle.

Besides we have become so litigious now that unions really aren't needed if you can find a good lawyer.

It is true that 10% of the people pay around 60% of the taxes. It appears to me that society (90% of society anyway) suggests this is OK. Maybe the goal is to see if the 10% paying most of the taxes now can foot 75% of the bill.

The numbers posted around page 2 are misleading (when discussiong quintiles of average income).

There will always be low wage earners in society. Dishwashers, busboys, lifeguards and construction workers come to mind immediately. I am sure there many other occupations I did not consider. The issue I see is that if the lowest 20% making 13k in 1988 are the same lowest 20% making 17k in 2008, then there is a problem.

If the lowest 20% making 13k in 1988 have changed occupations and quintiles so the lowest 20% of wage earners in 2008 is a new group of people, that is more important data.

Meaning the static data for a given year is irrelevant (to me) because there will always be a poor 20%, a rich 20% and a middle 60%. Can't help it- unless we are a socialist society and everyone earns the same wage.

The issue is the movement of the people the data represents. If the US population is 350 Million, 20% of this is 70 million. So if the 70 million "poor people" in 2008 are able to move up in society (based on income) and the poor 70 million in 2028 are "new poor people" that is free market working.

I associate free market with "trickle down".

Last point- smartmoney did an article a few months back which suggested money habits are gender and race inherited.

Hispanic people were 120% more likely to own a sub prime mortgage than whites. Blacks had a similar number (75% more likely to own sub prime mortgage).

Blacks and hispanics have a disproportionate amount of workers not use 401ks, IRAs and similar retirement plans. Meaning these races are making bad financial decisions. More than likely it is because the generation of their families before them made bad decisions too (this was the point of the article).

Smartmoney went on to suggest that even with various ethnic groups making more money (for example by surveying only hispanic workers making more than 100k) even those people were 75% less likely to be using a 401k than their white coworkers.

My take on this is financial education and the motive to manage money wisely is something learned from failure, not something government can require, schools can teach, or companies can control.

It is solely based on an individuals desire to succeed- I think this is "trickle up" or similar to the keynesian economic theory mentioned on a previous page in this thread.

[Broken Arrow]

Sorry for the late inclusion into a good thread. Death in the family last week kept me out 5 days... I am back.

My condolences to you and your family.

[jIM_Ohio]

My condolences to you and your family.

Appreciated. My grandmother died- she was 88 yo. It was a good weekend catching up with family. Most had not met the twins and I had not had real Buffalo wings in a long time. Good pre thanksgiving vacation and the whole weekend was more of a celebration than a mourning.

[zetta]

Meaning the static data for a given year is irrelevant (to me) because there will always be a poor 20%, a rich 20% and a middle 60%. Can't help it- unless we are a socialist society and everyone earns the same wage.

The issue is the movement of the people the data represents. If the US population is 350 Million, 20% of this is 70 million. So if the 70 million "poor people" in 2008 are able to move up in society (based on income) and the poor 70 million in 2028 are "new poor people" that is free market working.

There's a Washington Post columnist named Robert Samuelson who writes on economic matters. I generally find him very credible. He expanded on this point in this column: Robert J. Samuelson - The Real Economic Scorecard - washingtonpost.com

He asserts that most of the "new poor people" are recent immigrants with low skills, and that those who have been here a generation or two tend to move up the economic ladder. He favors heavily restricting immigration -- only allowing highly skilled immigrants into the country. I can't decide whether he's on to something or is just very biased against immigrants.

And obviously it doesn't account for non-immigrants trapped in the cycle of poverty in the urban ghettos or extremely rural areas like the Appalacian mountains.

[Inkstain82]

I got as far as response 1 and had to chime in.

Depends on what you attribute the "gap" to. I think the poor have gotten lazier over the last 20-40 years, and think this laziness has more to do with the wage gap than any taxation or lack of on the richest of the rich.

I don't know if I'd agree with lazier, but I think they've developed some awful, awful financial habits.

[rooskers]

I still stick by what I said. YOU are the one that chose your profession (just like my wife who is a teacher). The market does dictate what you are paid and school teachers are paid that amount...

...Second thing- have you tried to land a higher paying teaching job somewhere else? Around 5-10 years ago the Buffalo teachers went on striker. The average wage of the striking teacher was north of 100k.

I am very satisfied with what I make as a teacher and said that in a previous post. My point was that KGeary said that in a free market everyone gets paid what they are worth. Others were saying that if the underpaid people want to make more money that they should just get an education. Well I have an education and feel I am worth a lot more than $30,000. I am not complaining though since my wife makes a very decent living and we are happy where we are at financially. I also think family practive doctors, policeman, soldiers, volunteer firefighters, etc... are worth a lot more than they are paid.

Some people here have been borderline saying that people should be judged and valued on how much they earn.

Example:

I think the poor have gotten lazier over the last 20-40 years, and think this laziness has more to do with the wage gap than any taxation or lack of on the richest of the rich.

Instant gratification or lack of sacrifice and lack of financial education are the poors enemy, not the rich.

rich are rich because they make better financial decissions, while the poor make poor decissions.

I'd be far more inclined to say that workers aren't worth what they should be.

Certainly there are instances where all the above quotes are true but not in every case. I guess it comes down to how you define "worth". In our market we will glorify Paris Hilton and people pay her 6 figures to just come visit their night club. I personally don't think Paris Hilton is worth more than a teacher. Drugs dealers in the US make more than teachers and I certainly don't think they are worth more than teachers.

I understand that we don't want to distribute wealth as a general rule but to blame government for everything and credit them with nothing???? On one hand KGeary argues that it was the regulation of government that caused this melt down and then he turns around and says

Nobody forced the stupid consumers to sign on the dotted line either.

Well it sounds like your arguement is that it was partly the governments fault and partly the consumers fault. With this logic I can also claim that even though the banks could give loans to people without income doesn't mean they had too. Uh oh that would mean that it was partly the governments, consumers, and financial industries fault.

I will keep saying that what makes this country work is not extremism (complete free market, socialism, only trickle down, only trickle up) but the constant battle to find a middle ground that works best, not perfect, but just best.