Whatever you want to call it: Trickle-Down, or Supply-Side, or Reaganomics, perhaps we can finally tell the truth about this economic fantasy: it doesn't work, it never has, and it never will.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/594 ... 88d027ff29

Unadulterated, unfettered Free-Market ideology doesn't work. No economic system that is rigid and inflexible works. The future of this nation has to be a hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism. That doesn't mean the government owns a single corporation, but there are checks put on greedy, unscrupulous bankers and corporate leaders, who gouge consumers.

Those who say it worked for Reagan, that's false. It led us into the huge debt we have now and has only helped the very wealthy.

Well, I'm sure that a great many economists will be devastated now that you and the HuffPost have ended all debate on the subject and put them out of a job. Bravo.

That article is far too superficial to be an authoritative source on the subject. There isn't nearly enough detail about how Kansas implemented reforms to understand where things went wrong. Taking one example and holding it up as the example to end all debate is incredibly disingenuous. People spend years studying economics and writing voluminous tomes about the subject. I'm sorry, but this is one article and one example; it isn't enough to write off an entire economic theory.

KLDC10 wrote:

Well, I'm sure that a great many economists will be devastated now that you and the HuffPost have ended all debate on the subject and put them out of a job. Bravo..

Not that many economists will, since you can track scientific papers saying "no, won't work" back to the 80s.
In fact "trickle down economics" is a baby of politics.

To quote H. W. Arndt in "Economic Development and Cultural Change", Vol. 32, Issue 1 Pages 1 trough 10 from October 1983:

it is my object in this paper to suggest that no reputable development economist ever, implicitly or explicitly, entertained any such theory in any of its alleged versions. "Trickle down" is a myth which should be exposed and laid to rest".

And he wasn't really the only one...

Best regards
Thomas

The only realistic definition of trickle down economics is the 1% pissing on the 99%.

I won't to back to Reagan - All I need it the failure of the Bush-Cheney Administration (it's called the Great Recession) after their Tinkle Down tax cuts. Then the Kansas tax cut failure IS important as it demonstrates just how big a failure tax cuts for the wealthy really is. And we unfortunately have seen in Oklahoma how much suffering there is were when tax revenues after tax cuts fail to pay for the basics. Health & Education have been hit very hard. Even the Teacher of the Year moved to Texas so he can support his family. Fortunately the Good Lord has given us Mississippi, ensuring that Oklahoma isn't the absolute last in Health & Education.

coolian2 wrote:

The only realistic definition of trickle down economics is the 1% pissing on the 99%.

Not really, as with the whole of the human race, there are good and their are bad people, same thing applies to the 1%.

Ken777 wrote:

I won't to back to Reagan - All I need it the failure of the Bush-Cheney Administration (it's called the Great Recession) after their Tinkle Down tax cuts. Then the Kansas tax cut failure IS important as it demonstrates just how big a failure tax cuts for the wealthy really is. And we unfortunately have seen in Oklahoma how much suffering there is were when tax revenues after tax cuts fail to pay for the basics. Health & Education have been hit very hard. Even the Teacher of the Year moved to Texas so he can support his family. Fortunately the Good Lord has given us Mississippi, ensuring that Oklahoma isn't the absolute last in Health & Education.

The amazing thing to me is that even though it's been shown time and time again to be a bad idea for the general population, time and time again that same group of the population votes in people promising to cut the taxes on the higher wage earners.

Why would the GOP ever put it to rest? How else are they going to fabricate fuzzy math to defend their position that the poor have too much and the poor, burdened, *whispers* white, wealthy are suffering with too little?

I always wonder how those who have the least can support those who are responsible for their standard of living. Ignorance is bliss is the old saying, and it is proved over and over and over. It must be love of the strongest kind to vote for the ones screwing you over and over and over. Of course we also have religion in there also.

WarRI1 wrote:

I always wonder how those who have the least can support those who are responsible for their standard of living.

When they spend their entire lives directly or indirectly paying into various entitlements, pensions, etc; only for them to be robbed/dissolved/etc for the sake of corporate interests and their top shareholders.

When they work harder for less relative income than was being made 40yrs ago, with the AVERAGE Fortune500 CEO making 330x more than the median salary of other workers within that same corporation.

And plenty of other ways, that you'd know, if you cleaned the crap out of your eyes and actually took a look...........

So of course you would go ahead and vote for the people who shamelessly allow it to happen.

Triple Down economics works well in a developing economy, it does not work in a developed economy.

I don't think you can look at Kansas as a textbook example of this. Taxes and regulations are only one part of the equation when it comes to Economics and while keeping these things in check can certainly help an economy, without a bunch of other things in place that Kansas does not have, such policies will never work and you will see results similar to Kansas. Kansas for example is a big state, but the connections to the rest of the world are limited. The population base and density is not that high for one thing. There is no major airport with connections you would need to the rest of the country. Wichita's airport isn't that big, and the only other major one servicing a Kansas base would be Kansas City, which is in Missouri. Neither of these are major airline hubs, and without that connectivity, businesses just are not going to flow in. So there is no way what Brownback tried in Kansas could work. That doesn't mean lower taxes and regulations wont work elsewhere. Texas for example has no state income tax. But they also have a number of big cities and some coastal areas too. These things all put together are ripe for economic growth and businesses to move in, and its happened a lot lately. Florida is actually very similar to Texas in this respect. New Hampshire, while not a big state, also enjoys some sea coast, and proximity to Boston, and because of no state income tax, its become an attractive place. Nevada is not a big population state, but the tourism industry, combined with no income taxes has allowed the state to flourish, and its allowed companies like Tesla to move in.

Connecticut on the other hand has done exactly the opposite things, and despite some good fundamentals, they are losing companies big time.

Its a much more complicated issue than what Hillis states in his thread opener. There is a lot of truth to what he says. But its only one part of the picture. What really needs to happen is for corporations to start treating workers like people again and not machines. And unfortunately, judging by angry Wall Street analysts on earnings calls lately, it wont happen anytime soon. Which is just going to continue to foster anger between the right and the left.

KLDC10 wrote:

Well, I'm sure that a great many economists will be devastated now that you and the HuffPost have ended all debate on the subject and put them out of a job. Bravo.

That article is far too superficial to be an authoritative source on the subject. There isn't nearly enough detail about how Kansas implemented reforms to understand where things went wrong. Taking one example and holding it up as the example to end all debate is incredibly disingenuous. People spend years studying economics and writing voluminous tomes about the subject. I'm sorry, but this is one article and one example; it isn't enough to write off an entire economic theory.

You don't have to take my word or Huffpo, my man. Look at the disaster in Kansas. That was the most aggressive, purest form of Trickle-Down that has ever been attempted. And it was an unmitigated disaster. You can't build a successful economy from the top down. It has to be built from the bottom-up. The GOP is always talking about lifting all boats, but when they give the people at the top of the boat all the treasures, the boat sinks.

Raise the minimum wage. Make workers better consumers who will buy more goods and services. How the hell does it help the economy to give billionaires more money they won't spend?

The fact that Republicans in Kansas shot down Brownback's hideous experiment and raised taxes, speaks volumes.

apodino wrote:

I don't think you can look at Kansas as a textbook example of this

Why not? Brownback was textbook with it: massively cut taxes; cut programs that benefit the poor and middle class to subsidize the cuts. The jobs didn't come. The economy didn't boom. The tax cuts were so massive, they couldn't fund anything else. And on top of that, the State Supreme Court ruled they were dangerously underfunding public education. Heck, he even dabbled with the idea of taking money from the Obamacare Medicaid mandate.

apodino wrote:

Kansas for example is a big state

Kansas may have land, but it doesn't have a huge population. It's a small state. It isn't a state like Texas or Florida, that can rely on tourism so there is no income tax. They don't have the critical mass for that.

apodino wrote:

Connecticut on the other hand has done exactly the opposite things, and despite some good fundamentals, they are losing companies big time.

Then explain the booming economy in California? Or in Minnesota.

A few years back, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and the New York Times compared what was going in Wisconsin, which was running a heavy trickle-down economy under Scott Walker, and in Minnesota, running a heavily progressive economic program. In every metric, Minnesota was far ahead of Wisconsin.

Again, top-down economic development doesn't work.

LAX772LR wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I always wonder how those who have the least can support those who are responsible for their standard of living.

When they spend their entire lives directly or indirectly paying into various entitlements, pensions, etc; only for them to be robbed/dissolved/etc for the sake of corporate interests and their top shareholders.

When they work harder for less relative income than was being made 40yrs ago, with the AVERAGE Fortune500 CEO making 330x more than the median salary of other workers within that same corporation.

And plenty of other ways, that you'd know, if you cleaned the crap out of your eyes and actually took a look...........

Huh!!, don't you know I know that as well as anyone on here. Where the hell have you been for the last ten years of my postings?

Already widely know. You need a strong middle class, in order to grow. They spend every dollar within the community and country, the rich will either invest (abroad) or spend it on goods from abroad.

But heck, why not make yourself a little richer as with this government. Trump cut all kinds of programs, just not the ones he benefits from, like the one which "supports" landlords to make housing a little cheaper.