Since we have so many economists here, what examples of trickle-down economics working are there?
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't exactly seem to be endorsing the notion of trickle-down-economics in this thread, so clearly RD wasn't having a pop at you.
And would you really say that most of the electorate is well-informed on the issues?
hahaha.... a significant portion of Americans are dumbasses politically. They get the govt. they deserve.
No I wouldn´t say that the electorate is well-informed and many people make weird choices. I think we can all agree, that voting for Trump - regardless of your position - is a rather bad idea. Even if you are totally fed with politics, you could make a better choice.
The flip side is, that many politicians - and I had contact with quite a few in Germany, because I was a member of a party - don´t know as much as you´d hope. The majority of them neither studied anything related to economics nor run a business. (The first one isn´t that important, because it is a quite overrated degree.) They still have to make decisions. Still even if you had only well-educated politicians, you´d face the problem, that there are huge disagreements between economists. So whose advise do you follow?
I don´t agree with trickle down economics at all for various reasons, but at the same time you don´t need to be a deceived idiot to argue for smaller government and a balanced budget.
This is not specific to America. Voters worldwide in general are not very well informed.
Neverminding that not even politicians have the firmest of grasps on these issues, Red Dream's comment that you recoiled at was him answering a post talking about trickle down economics. Fair enough, he also described Gary Johnson as a nutter for the stances listed in the bullet points, and you two might have an interesting discussion on those points, but he never said you were uninformed or tricked, that was solely a charge laid at the feet of people who have faith in the notion of trickle down (against their own interests).
As many people on both sides of the debate have pointed out, economists mostly don't recognize that trickle-down economics means any idea or group of ideas, and that its a term only used in political debate (its wikipedia entry starts by saying that). That said, because I believe the question is genuine, I'll look to provide a genuine answer.
In high-school they teach (in Politics & Economics in US schools) supply-side economics vs. demand-side economics. At a higher level there are more than just two groups, and study is further broken down into specific fields. This actually makes for a fun read: http://www.pragcap.com/a-cheat-sheet-for-understanding-the-different-schools-of-economics/
So to broadly answer, I'd say the US's continued economic primacy (GDP per capita 36.7% larger than the UK, 19.5% larger than Germany) is testament to the success of lower than average taxation and the government not doing as much in primary economic activity. Its imperfect, sure. The US has greater inequality than the other countries, but I'm not quite ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Singapore is like the poster-child of liberal economics. Very low taxes, very open to trade and friendly to business, low corruption, have made a once poor city island turn into the 3rd highest GDP per capita on earth. Of course I have to admit the same thing I'd claim when people talk of the success of the Scandinavian: they're much smaller economies and populations than the US, major European countries or major developing countries. That means its arguably much easier to manage.
Even UK vs. France is a case study of one model vs. another. Both countries are quite similar in major stats right now, and each has the stats where it does better. But if they continue on their current paths we should see the UK start to slowly pull ahead.
its not arrogant to state facts. you are entitled to your choice of candidates. I stand by my statement that he is 'nutter'. And yes. You are a true Libetarian if you buy into what he says.
Expecting Jeb to put in a better than expected showing tomorrow, finishing as high as third.
Is there another debate tonight?
think Kasich will be the biggest gainer from Marcobot's malfunction.
no.
Here is list for both Dems and Republicans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/debates/schedule/
Thanks very much.
no worries
sparks will be flying in both debates is my guess.
Feb 11th Dems
Feb 13Th GOP
no worries
sparks will be flying in both debates is my guess.
Feb 11th Dems
Feb 13Th GOP
Yeah I think so, it's definitely starting to get nastier between them all. It will be interesting to see the results tomorrow night and the reactions from them.
Bill Clinton starting to have a real go at Sanders just before voting tomorrow.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-bernie-sanders_us_56b7d00de4b04f9b57da0d2f
Kasich could jump to second.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kasich-new-hampshire-primary_us_56b7fe1ce4b01d80b246cedb
I can see Trump, Cruz and Kasich finishing above him.
dont see any polls for Nevada caucus for Dems. Feb 20th
Anyone who wants to become a leader of a Nation should be barred from doing so.
Amazing interview with Trump and Chris Matthews right now on MSNBC. Trump seems so much less radical when he's speaking one on one with a liberal journalist.
he is not a radical. He says crazy things he does not even believe. He will pivot to the middle. If you look at just enthusiasm, only Trump and Bernie have it. The GOP may not like him, but he may be their best bet.
A Trump woman supporter called Cruz a pussy. Trump repeated the word...reprimanding her.
hmmm....wonder if this an opening?
no. I did not mean that.
no. I did not mean that
hmmm....wonder if this an opening?
no. I did not mean that.
no. I did not mean that
Since the thread has taken on a macroeconomic bent lately, I thought this was relevant:
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates
Maximum effective personal income tax rates under Sanders (payroll and income combined, for individuals earning above $10m a year) would be 77% (relative to 43.4% at present). I have to ask, surely that's unsustainable? Aren't people just going to feck off instead? This isn't the 60s when Fabian socialism meant taxes were in that range across all of the developed world. Hollande couldn't even get 75% 'supertax' done in France, for instance.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates
Maximum effective personal income tax rates under Sanders (payroll and income combined, for individuals earning above $10m a year) would be 77% (relative to 43.4% at present). I have to ask, surely that's unsustainable? Aren't people just going to feck off instead? This isn't the 60s when Fabian socialism meant taxes were in that range across all of the developed world. Hollande couldn't even get 75% 'supertax' done in France, for instance.
This probably isn't the thread for it, but Michigan just made (tried to make) sodomy illegal. The hell's wrong with you America.
To be fair, gay marriage is still not recognized in Oz, so...
There's a difference between not legally recognising a union between two men, and making sexual relations between two men illegal tho. I mean they are on the same scale of discrimination against homosexuality, but they are at very different points on that scale.
Not familiar at all with US tax system. Those taxes seem pretty high to me as they are though. And if the author's payroll tax interpretation is correct, those first three groups are fecked over in both cases.
That second table looks even more insane though. Who the feck would pay 60% capital gains tax? The Scandinavian countries look like the Cayman Islands compared to this.
That's a marginal tax rate. It means that all the income OVER 10 mill gets taxed at that rate, but the rate is lower for all the earnings before that mark is hit.
It's charitable to the wealthy compared to Eisenhower, a Republican.
edit: I only just noticed, that bloody Vox article's been doing the rounds, SPECULATING on what his rates might be. It's been a good long while since the rates came out of the actual Sanders campaign, making speculation superfluous. Here are the real rates that he's released:
http://i.imgur.com/drfyv82.png
Not all that crazy, if you ask me. I pay the same rate here in Norway as people who earn 8-9 times as much as me in the US under this, and that's on ALL my income, not just income over a certain bracket.
Last edited:
Republican Party today...to think back in 2000 - lots of muslims voted for Bush.
It's not just men though is it? That would apply to men and women too, and do they include oral sex as well? Because oral sex is considered sodomy by many religious people.
It's the election coming up, don't worry that the health system needs help, and the schools need help, or the economy needs help, gun laws, roads etc....... No let's spend all our time worrying about what's really important, and that's what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
I also would have thought that Michigan would have more important things to worry about at the moment, mainly like getting safe drinking water to Flint. Obviously drinking semen is more toxic than chemical filled water.
Not just many religious people, that's the definition of the word originally. Oral, anal, not sure what that makes of scissoring or tromboning and the like, though. It also covers bestiality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy
They're good at alienating their natural base (Hispanics, Asians and Muslims) .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-smear-wall-street_us_56b9025de4b08069c7a86088
Democrats Are Fuming About Hillary Clinton's 'Smear' Line
They say it's a tacit embrace of Citizens United.
Democrats Are Fuming About Hillary Clinton's 'Smear' Line
They say it's a tacit embrace of Citizens United.
Jeb is 2nd in the latest NH poll. He should do well today.
Ah, good catch regarding marginal tax rate - thank you for the clarification! Other than that, however, a few quick points:
1. Your link explicitly says in the fine print that it is made by a redditor unaffiliated to Bernie Sanders "so feel free to blame him and not the campaign for any errors" - may I know if you have a better source?
2. In any event, I made a point of stressing that the Vox article references a combination of both payroll (employer-deducted) and income (paid by the citizen) taxes. Your link does not. When we deduct payroll taxes from the Vox article, the figures are essentially equal. You may, of course, choose to take the position that the employer will not in fact pass on payroll taxes to the employee, both in terms of wage rises and/or slower hiring, and that corporations will therefore bear the whole brunt of the payroll tax hike, but that seems improbable to me.
3. Charitable relative to Eisenhower, I think, does not well address my point that this is no longer the 60s, few other countries have tax rates comparable to this, and I'd be curious how Sanders proposes to prevent citizens from leaving to avoid his taxes, or whether he considers it a problem. I should note that Americans giving up their citizenship for tax reasons has hit record figures for the last three years consecutively.
Ed: never mind point 1, I've followed the source that your link provides, it's right.
If Hillary ended up closing the gap to only 9, it would be a 'moral' victory for her and pretty disappointing for Sanders (well as disappointing as a win could ever be 
)
)The more people stay in the better for Trump. He must be hoping that Kasich and co. finish in close bunched up pack.
About point 2., there is no free lunch and there is no employer just eating the payroll tax bill, just smiling and paying everything they would to the employee. If you eliminated it I won't argue that everyone would get a raise on day one, but in a heated job market employers would soon have to offer those higher wages, and would find enough margin to do it.
On point 3., don't think the US would suffer as much as some other countries would for doing the same. It is a valuable nationality to have, and although there were record numbers recently, 3,000 people in a sea of 320m isn't really relevant. That said, one main point about all the economic discussion going on nowadays is that it is very much not the 60s anymore. Middle-class America used to work in factories or companies that managed factories that made things as simple as toilets, furniture, clothing, light-bulbs, basic metalwork, etc. And they'd work those jobs all their lives, get their raises and benefits through union negotiations. That's all gone, its not coming back, and it wouldn't be to the US's benefit if it came back. The sooner people realize that the stable middle-class of the 60s, 70s and 80s is gone because those lower value-added activities are gone, the sooner they'll stop thinking it was the government that did it to them.
- Status