Pisses Me Off

When I'm surfing the web, I see a lot of posts, comments, etc. that talk about "trickle-down economics." Just about every Republican's fiscal policy is labeled "trickle-down," or "voodoo" economics, and it pisses me off.

Trickle down economics does not exist. There is no school of economics that advocates for it. Not the Chicago School, not the Austrian School—none of it. The phrase itself originates from the 1980s, it was a slogan used to target Reagan's economic policy of tax cuts and deregulation. It painted Reagan and other advocates of tax reduction as friends of the rich, bent on fucking over the poor and middle class. It's a political slogan. That's it.

What troubles me most is how this has led many soft-minded, ignorant people into a disastrously mistaken idea about the source of prosperity: that high taxes and a growing government is the best way to increase it.

In a free society, wealth doesn't trickle down. It is earned.

What these fucking pansies don't understand is that people of all economic strata have far more opportunities available to them when government spends less, when government is, in effect, less wasteful, and when citizens take in more. Reagan's economic policy was a success. It rapidly increased production and employment. His policy never intended for money to "trickle-down." Freer markets enabled both the rich and poor to earn more, save more, and be more productive.



Please, don't be fooled by a meaningless slogans such as this.

Trickle-down economics ARE a thing. They DO exist. The fact that Reagan or Thatcher haven't named their neoliberal visions of the world in such way doesn't change the fact that such visions exist. And such policies obviously do not work.

Interesting, but the charts are wrong. The downwards sloping curve around 2007 was due to an economic crash, not obamas policies. In fact obama's policies helped the revival of the american economy.
Economic crashes happen after a lack of government regulation. The American housing market crashed because the banks gave out loans to people who could never pay them back, while the lenders still earned their commission. The same happened in Ireland.

A complete free market will never help equity.

2019 and people like Wheelo still think Obama's or Democrat economic policies differ from Reagan or Republic economic policies...

Written by Guest, 05.07.2019 at 11:51

2019 and people like Wheelo still think Obama's or Democrat economic policies differ from Reagan or Republic economic policies...

You are beyond autistic. That was not even the central point you utter moron.

Poverty and economic inequality aren't the same. Economic inequality can be increasing while poverty is decreasing. The solution to poverty does not necessitate a closure of the income gap.

Success increases income inequality while at the same time increasing the well being of millions of people.

Just remember that before you espouse your communist propaganda, retards.

Also,

Written by Guest, 05.07.2019 at 06:17

Trickle-down economics ARE a thing. They DO exist. The fact that Reagan or Thatcher haven't named their neoliberal visions of the world in such way doesn't change the fact that such visions exist. And such policies obviously do not work.

Read what I wrote in my post, move your eye balls across your screen, do I have to instruct you on how to read? I can't teach you common sense. I'm just assuming you have it. Obviously I'm mistaken.

"[Reagan's policy never intended for money to 'trickle-down.' Freer markets enabled both the rich and poor to earn more, save more, and be more productive."

Get this through your thick head

Written by Tribune Aquila, 05.07.2019 at 15:47

Poverty and economic inequality aren't the same. Economic inequality can be increasing while poverty is decreasing. The solution to poverty does not necessitate a closure of the income gap.

Success increases income inequality while at the same time increasing the well being of millions of people.

Just remember that before you espouse your communist propaganda, retards.

Of course they aren't the same. Yet you think that the poverty has really decreased?

Written by Guest, 05.07.2019 at 15:49

Of course they aren't the same. Yet you think that the poverty has really decreased?

Really? You are very ill-bred, no offense. Facts go through one ear and out the other. Listen, your claim is entirely unfounded, you did not even bother to do a google-search, did you? You just make this up.

Let's take a look at some figures:
For the first time in world history, fewer than 1 bullion people live in extreme poverty.

The world has 7.6 billion people and increasing. Yet more people have been lifted out of poverty than any other time in history. This is because of free trade and economic growth, globalization which has made the rich richer and lifted billions out of poverty.

Written by Tribune Aquila, 05.07.2019 at 16:37

Really? You are very ill-bred, no offense. Facts go through one ear and out the other. Listen, your claim is entirely unfounded, you did not even bother to do a google-search, did you? You just make this up.

Let's take a look at some figures:
For the first time in world history, fewer than 1 bullion people live in extreme poverty.

The world has 7.6 billion people and increasing. Yet more people have been lifted out of poverty than any other time in our history. This is because of free trade and economic growth, globalization which has made the rich richer and lifted billions out of poverty.

Exactly. Even massive countries like India/China were in extreme poverty until they opened their economies and quit having socialistic policies. I'd happily take free trade over protectionism and a failed socialistic economy. It's literally brought billions out of poverty and saved tens of millions of babies/children from high infant/child mortality that exists in poor countries with weak economies. Free trade has saved hundreds of millions of lives in the last few centuries

Although Njab is probably just arguing for higher taxes. Higher taxes isn't necessarily a communist idea. He's not arguing that all property should be seized by the state.

Written by Tribune Aquila, 05.07.2019 at 16:37

Trickle down economics does not exist. There is no school of economics that advocates for it. Not the Chicago School, not the Austrian School—none of it. The phrase itself originates from the 1980s, it was a slogan used to target Reagan's economic policy of tax cuts and deregulation. It painted Reagan and other advocates of tax reduction as friends of the rich, bent on fucking over the poor and middle class. It's a political slogan. That's it.

Trickle-down economics exists and is the basis for most modern neo-liberal economic policy. The intent of the philosophy is clear and the term given is appropriate. This justification stems from the theory that reducing taxes and deregulating will make America more inviting for companies to invest, and give more room to invest money into research and development. Did they pass on these profits to workers? No. Did they reduce prices? No. Instead, they crippled unions, drastically improved productivity but didn't pass a single cent on to the body of workers that built it. These companies setup their manufacturing in third world countries for cheap labour, sold products at high costs to westerners and then barely pay their proper tax based on revenue. They setup their main business in tax havens and use all sorts of legalese to limit their payments. They lobbied for big immigration and big trade deals which have done nothing but harm native workers. The average citizen is incapable of working through the legal minefield of tax deductions like big business and ends up paying in a far bigger percentage of their earnings than billion dollar empires. Big companies refuse to pay a proper wage for peoples labour and will warp foreign and domestic policy to avoid paying good labour. It does not trickle down.

Written by Tribune Aquila, 05.07.2019 at 04:13

This chart is embarrassing. How can you possibly think this is a good defence of your economic worldview? It directly proves their critique of you. The bottom 5th have the same household income as they did almost 40 years ago. The bottom 3 incomes have barely climbed but the top income consistently rises despite downturns. Doesn't that speak volumes of who who is in control and who benefits? Are you also going to sit there and tell us Clinton was great but Bush was terrible despite little difference in policy?

Written by Tribune Aquila, 05.07.2019 at 16:37

Let's take a look at some figures:
For the first time in world history, fewer than 1 bullion people live in extreme poverty.

The world has 7.6 billion people and increasing. Yet more people have been lifted out of poverty than any other time in history. This is because of free trade and economic growth, globalization which has made the rich richer and lifted billions out of poverty.

Those billion taken out of poverty mostly live in China and India who remain committed to command economies. This was achieved by massive rapid industrialisation entirely dictated by the state. It wasn't a 'free market' that did this. And what was the cost? Enormous environmental and social damage which China is attempting to mitigate. India is failing in that regard. Now look at global debt. Global debt went from $70ish trillion to somewhere between $150-250 trillion in under a decade. What's going to happen to the third world when the bubble pops?

The policies of East and West are vastly different. Do you know what happened to businessman caught committing fraud against the state in China? They got shot. In the West, they got bonuses and backhand deals. The markets have expanded, gained massive economic growth increased wealth growth among the upper echelons but the average wages remain similar to decades ago compared to inflation. Buying power for important things has greatly reduced. You can buy a cheap iphone but you can't afford a home or healthcare, and the phone is usually bought on high interest credit. The average youth in the 1950s could buy off their house within 3 years, today it will take them from three decades to century if they're lucky. In the 1950s, Americans had ample lifelong careers, lucrative wages and powerful unions etc. Why? Because a big powerful America state molded it. It's all gone now. It's all been sold off to the highest bidders of big business who have no connection to any nation or people. There are engineers working as bartenders and students in major debt that they can't even default on. How does that make any damn sense? How can a bank claim bankruptcy but a student can't? What an absolute racket. A third of the 18-30's are still living with parents. We have consistently growing massive single parenthood, an opioid crisis, an obesity crisis, a total fracturing of the body politic and 50 million babies slaughtered in the womb over 60 years.

I am beyond sick and tired of this philosophy that promotes an atomised worldview. We are not individuals, we are networks with identities. We are nations of people, not just 'consumers'. For decades, neo-libs attack unions of workers, but they say nothing of the unions of bankers and big business lobbying for their interests. I see them shoving their gay pride in everyone's faces and their 'woke' anti-white ideals of celebrating some fictitious racial underclass but has Google formed a union for its workers? Are they setting up employment protections? No, they're importing third worlders on flimsy VISA's who have to work a lower wage or get deported. All that cheap labour will fund a slow automation of those jobs and they'll drop them like a hot potato. The capitalist class is happy to put some false veneer of 'wokeness' and 'racial equality' but they take no worker action other than causing tensions between races and groups. Its a massive sham.

You want to see where neo liberalism led Britain? The average wage growth in the UK over the last decade hasn't been this bad since the 1800's. Since the fucking steam engine. Western retail, transport and even tech are slowly being automated and job losses will be in the millions, and possibly tens of millions within a decade or more. What will they do? What's the plan, big guy?

Boomer Reaganite politics has been the utter death knell of the West. Fuck trickle down. Fuck atomised individualism pushed on the masses while a corporate elite forms its own unions of power and dictates government policy.

Written by Tik-Tok, 07.07.2019 at 04:44

I am suprised how much your views on the neoliberalism agree with mine

4nic bro, why are you posting cringe? This Friedman free to choose take is a big fat loser my man, the 80s are done with, the Soviets lost. This isn't Stranger Things.