TrickleDown

So /pol does trickle down economics actually work or is it just a meme give me proof

It doesn't work, only cuckservatives think so
But trickle upwards economics where you give more money to the lower class also doesn't work.

Capitalism just doesn't work at all.

Of course it doesn't fucking work. It's a forced meme by people who were fucking asspained by the New Deal.

The only reason it's still around is because Reagan was the Trump of his day and all of his memesters are in power.

>im retarded and don't have anything of market value to offer so capitalism doesn't work for me the thread

>he thinks capitalism is viable in a ever technologically advancing society
You're fucking retarded

Kek, it only advances because of said capitalism

instead of all those years that capitalism has been viable in a technologically advancing society

You have better and more TVs, phones and cars than your grandpa. Your grandchildren will have even more.
Every generation controls more wealth, because the richest of us advance industry and science.
The wealth trickles down, as in the overall size of the pie increases so much, that even though half the pie is eaten by a small minority, the other half is still bigger and each small person still gets more.

So yeah, trickle down works, just not as well as advertised, but still works.

It depends on how you define "trickle down economics." It's certainly not true that by growing the upper class of economics the lower classes will grow in proportion.

But the thing to understand about economics is that the top 1% aren't hoarders (that wouldn't do them any good), and they aren't burning the money to keep themselves warm, they are circulating their capital and growing the economy. The money might not "make it into the hands" of everyone else, but everyone benefits. I know you want them to give you dat, but does it really matter how many negative assets the bottom 50% of America has when their quality of life is doing fine and their access to cheap goods and services is ever-increasing.

...

Keep in mind that "trickle down economics" never was part of anu serious conservative economics research. It's a strawman that was developed by the left.

Faggot leftists memed the word trickle down economics

supply side economics do work though its a pretty basic idea

Have you ever been employed? Did someone ever pay you with money they made based on capital and risk they invested?

Fuck off

Not true.
Especially not during times of war.

We just need to find other ways to motivate people.

Trickle down is a left wing lie to discredit economic freedom: capx dot co/trickle-down-economics-is-a-leftist-lie/

Yes and no. There's aspects that work and aspects that don't. Lowering taxes doesn't really effect much, getting rid of needless regulation does.

this

trickledown is a strawman. The purpose of free market isn't to give everyone wealth, its for individuals to create wealth themselves

The fuck are you talking about.
It's only recent we've been truly becoming advanced with robots taking over jobs and digital only products which can easily be pirated

LIBERAL capitalism doesn't work.
Capitalism can work though.

Real trickle down has never been tried, it was crony capitalism not free market capitalism.
Give freedom a chance.

True, as long as they invest in useful things in their own country like small business it should work. Investing overseas or in shit like housing (negative gearing) fucks the poor in the housing market.

Also trade deficits are important, if your sending billions to china and getting happy meals in return that's money leaving your economy, and drives down your dollar.

TLDR I think it would work with protectionist investment laws and tariffs and shieet.

"Trickle down" economics is a left-wing invention to demonize supply-side economics.

Beat me to it.

Even during the war capitalist America was miles ahead with efficient production methods, proximity shells, efficient and quick methods to stop typhus, 4-engine bombers, atom bombs and lots of other things.

Remember that national socialism also relied heavily on private companies.

mfw the US is arguing against capitalism and the Ruskie is arguing for it

>What is the industrial revolution

>Capitalism just doesn't work at all.

fuck off retarded commie tripfag

The globalist argument (that I don't entirely support, but does have some inevitable weight to it) is that that is only a temporary issue because the market is by necessity isolated to a single system (the Earth). But even if it's only a temporary issue it still requires temporary action.

But I wouldn't use China as the prime example. China's economy is getting pretty good at investing in useful things and not simply throwing their money away on inefficient nonsense. As much as they're taking our money from us, they're sending it back by investing in America again. With regards to China we're in a co-dependent system where they depend on us as much as we depend on them. It may FEEL like China's getting more out of it than we are, but I don't think the average Chinese sweat shop worker would agree; I think that's just playing with the idea of a system where we benefit from all the cheap labor that China offers while simultaneously somehow keeping all the purchasing power for ourself.

This aussie has it right. With enough protectionism, any economic system is viable. Free trade with poor countries is just another means for the globalist elite and international Jewry to shit on the poor of your country. This is why non nationalist libertarians are retarded.

If you don't have strong tariffs, your wealth will "trickle down" to the fucking Chinese and you'll lose it forever.

If only enterprises weren't so corrupted and down on shady business, bad practices is what ends economies. The moment government interferes only gets worse.

paying better wages is literally the best way to mantain a strong economy. That is provided people aren't completely retarded and mnow how to inprove productivity

>I have no grasp that as our understanding of technology increases and our ability to produce more with less becomes more and more it wouldn't cuz capitalism to self destruct
You're completely deluded if you think capitalism can continue just fine in the future.

Both of these images are correct.

yeah remember when Cuba just jumped 300 years forward in technology because it stopped practicing dirty capitalism?

Chinese working conditions have been steadily rising for decades, and the cost of their labor is going up. You can thank American money for that shift. It's all money that would've been better spent domestically.

What you're describing is the economic equilibrium that is inherent in a global economy. Once Chinese labor becomes unprofitable it'll move elsewhere; if there's nowhere else to move it'll most likely become domestic (since having labor close has its intrinsic benefits). While it's true that "we're paying for China's growth", we're doing that because it benefits us.

Economy is not a zero-sum system. Because of technology and (the somewhat unsustainable) population growth, productivity is always growing.

If only we could be in a state of perpetual war with the world, we'd have cured cancer. Looks like we'll just have to rely on good ol Cuba to invent the next spaceship and HIV cure

circulation is the most important part of economics and the rich do it the most

>Producing more with less
>Not a capitalist dream
If resources become rare or depleted the price will skyrocket and capitalism will find other resources to use, as it has always done.

You have a very simplified understanding of economics

Socio economic doctrines work independently of the quality of people. African countries have every single doctrine under the sun and are still shitholes. Whites have had pretty comfy lives irregardless if they're living under franco, gorbachev, or thatcher.

>Employees don't get paid
Ok

>999
And would you look at that, Kek confirms what the Tripfag says.

Capitalism WAS good, but it is becoming LESS and LESS viable because technological advances decrease the number of necessary jobs without creating an equal number of them, not more.

Capitalism WILL fail in the not-too-distant future without a sudden and unforeseen shift in the way this planet works, the only thing is to question whether we will devolve into a dystopia where a powerful 0.1% control the majority of the planet using their machines and drones, or something else.

I try.

>socialist ignores the facts that lie in between what he desires to be true and keeps on perverting his perspective until he sees what he wants
Well metaphored.

Firstly, I'm not a socialist.
Secondly, what am I ignoring? Spell it out to me. Because as I see it, it's an incredibly simple equation.

>Jobs go down.
>Population goes up.
>We all get fucked.

>this
You'd think everyone with a brain would come to that conclusion.

Jobs havent gone down, they have moved ti China, if anything they have gone up by the largw scale increase of different products

It's that same thinking that makes people believe trickle down economics works.

Yesh IF people spend that money productively.
IF only.

Less meaning less actual manpower and using less resources to create the same product hence why I said as technology advances it will cause a negative effect.

It's simple fucking logic what don't you fucking understand.

Jobs are not "things you must do" but "things you can convince people to pay you to do", you Luddite. Wheat threshers obsoleted some jobs and created far far more. Just because your particular set of skills are no longer needed does not mean the market suddenly decides to lock up.

Also trips in the middle of post numbers aren't trips.

I'm not talking about jobs going down from outsourcing, I'm talking about jobs vanishing into the ether due to automation.

In the end, only the very few reap the rewards of the effort of thousands.

>And would you look at that, Kek confirms what the Tripfag says.
>969

Trickle down economics doesn't exist. What does exist is keeping taxes low to make hard work worthwhile and not interfering by imposing useless regulations.

capitalism is fundamentally flawed in the long run.
it needs
consistant population growth
snowballing profits from public companies
homogenized trading blocks at the cost of national will

most problems pol has is because of it

I have made your exact argument before. The problem is political realities mean that even if globalism is good on paper, it shifts the political balance of power. Do you trust China with all the power you're giving them?

Strength must be hoarded, not shared. At the very least, only trade with Western democracies. America's place as global hegemon is quickly slipping thanks to these free trade agreements.

The economic argument for globalism is good, but the political costs are too severe. I don't trust the elites in my own country, and you expect me to hand power to communists in a foreign one?

...

It's very poor logic, the need for manpower doesn't go down because of more efficient resource use, you try to make this connection with no proof to back it up.

Youre literally anti-technology.

just wanted to butt in to say that this thread is getting dangerously close to unironically bringing up the "robots will take all our jobs in just a few years, basic income now!" meme and I would get fatally triggered if it were to come to that so please lead the conversation away from that

It means that there are less people needed to provide for a family, we can go back to one-income households. How is that not good?

The need for manpower doesn't go down because of efficient resource usage, the need for manpower goes down because of automated machinery.

In order for it to work you actually have to get a fucking job. Let me guess you thought you were going to get rich by sitting on your ass collecting welfare

Any idea why people keep repeating it, despite the fact that it's a total crock of shit?

>Do you trust China with all the power you're giving them?
Probably more than I should.

apart from attracting hoards of migrants, what is bad about it?

>the rich get tax breaks (includes well paid professionals)
>they now have more income to spend
>they invest the income with financial insitutions who buy/sell stocks and bonds on the secondary market

Literally LOL if you think the wealthy would do something as retarded and risky as starting new businesses or directly buying stock from IPOs.

>Capitalism WILL fail!
>Said increasingly nervous communist for the hundredth time this century

I wish that was how it worked, and in an ideal world it would. But you're assuming for some reason that it costing less to produce something means that the workers will get paid more or the product will become cheaper.

Why can't i see the people living in cages in this picture?

because the idea of being given free stuff without working for it or doing anything is very appealing to some

>he legitimately believes capitalism is the final system of distribution
So did the aristocrats during feudalism.

Thats not what he said and even in the industrial revolution, getting replaced by a machine was shitty, but jobs overall still increased.

Nobody said that.

>seriously guize the world isn't being more and more automated I promise you!!!

This is the crux of thing.
>Corporation makes 50,000,000 a year before a tax rate of 50%, leaving it with 25,000,000.
>Tax rate is slashed in half to 25%, leaving it with an extra 12,500,000.

What happens here? Because I'll tell you what doesn't happen to that extra money. It *doesn't* make decrease the price of the things they sell, it *doesn't* increase the wages of the low-level workers, it *doesn't* lead to more people being hired.

nah it's for sure some jew-type shit

Capitalism doesn't work like that, at least not anymore, it has turned in to a huge pyramid scheme waiting to collapse.
Money and power goes to the top to people who don't really contribute nothing to the society, they just manipulate the system for their benefit.

It's just a playground for already well established multinational mega corporations that only care for profits and keeping their share holders happy. There's barely any competition for them because they have either managed to establish a monopoly or they simply buy off the competition or prevent any from emerging with tons of patents and copyrights. They have huge influence over our politicians because they might belong to industry that employs a lot of people in certain states or that brings a huge sum of money through taxes.

This is the true nature of capitalism and free market.
You have the freedom to compete and freedom to restrict the freedom of others via competition.

We have simply entered the stage of capitalism where these corporations are starting to restrict our freedom to live.

As long as there is competition that's what will happen though. At the end you have to sell your products for prices people can afford, otherwise you won't sell it.

Then why are you mocking someone for saying capitalism will fail? It inevitably will land already is.

poor person has a cool idea opens store and sells his hand made shit, he gets money and starts making his product , meaning he gives money to some sweatshop to make his stuff, he just sustained a couple kids workplaces, he now sells professional made items, he sells more and for a higher price, he cant keep up with the demand by himself. he employs a salesman and a secretary, he buys out a store and sets up a neat store, he has to renovate the place so he pays some carpenter to fix shit up, he pays the electrician to fix the poewerlines and so on, he buys some furniture from some office outlet store and pays some delivery company to bring him the stuff, he now sells more of his item and expands, buys another store and employs a manager and 2 more salesmen

how does trickling down doesnt work?

what you assume is the regular rich person is George Soros, this guy is beyond rich and yeah he doesnt need to do anything to stay rich, but he keeps doing some deals and what not to get even more rich and probably indirectly finances some blue collar workers workplaces

it will be superseeded by technocracy

Like most theories that overlook human nature, it works in theory.

But as an Australian business owner, i can tell you when i got cuts from 2015 (1.5% less + crazy tax deductions) i wasn't thinking how many more employees i could put on, i was thinking i could now drop to 8 months a year working and fund annual 2-3 week holidays to wherever the fuck i want.

Also the problem with alot of trickle down tax cuts is that they're flat out not enough to really improve things. Like i said, those 2015 tax breaks we got ironed out to about 15-20 grand at best, it costs me like a minimum 20-30 grand to hire an apprentice, stretching to 60-70 thousand for a fully qualified worker.

You just can't do the cuts necessary without completely crippling the economy, so all these half-measures that sort of help business but not in the way it's meant to are just silly statistic manipulating bullshit.

I'll still vote for it because the alternative is worse, but it's retarded.

Even socialism needs population growth. Public companies are anti-capitalist and your last claim is unverifiable.

If its not the final system, then it will in fact fail.

Trickledown means giving tax cuts to rich business owners. Learn english.

>like small business

You mean like no wealthy person in their right mind does?

Unverifiable claims supported by nothing

A person starts a business, and employs other people.
That is trickle down economics. The business owner getting rich while the employees earn a fair market wage is not proof of a broken system. If you expect to be rich while working for someone else then you're still a child. You become the business owner, become a success, and get your own employees. If you fail you keep trying.


>b-b-b-but muh living wage
>muh glass ceilings
>muh rich get richer
>muh wealth gap
>muh social programs

Reminder to ignore all Critical Theory posters

hahaha, that's the Sup Forums I know.
#LonglivetheAnarchy

It works as long as there are laws that prevent anti competitive shit, but because almost every capitalist society is basically an oligarchy it will never work.

In america is LEGAL to LITERALLY BRIBE politicians, its impossible for "trickle down" to work as long as that exists.

...

>A person starts a business, and employs other people.
>That is trickle down economics.
no, that's actually not what trickle down economics is
sorry you're literally retarded

Pareto law does not allow the upper glass grow more, than the double of the volume of the lower level of glasses.

It's a wonderful theory, but when the richest 20 men own more wealth the bottom 160,000,000, there is a tragic flaw somewhere.

brexit explains my last point,
socialism is so flawed i literally cant start on it.

It doesn't work, but not because "people are evil" or "the rich are greedy" or whatever emotional appeal is being pushed in this thread. Trickle-down economics don't work because of debt dynamics. As an economy changes its tax structure to free up more capital for productive investment - this can be tax cuts OR tax increases depending on the economic structure you're starting with - you do indeed see an increase in productive investment, to some extent. But as the program continues, bolstered by promising increases in productive investment, you also see upticks in malinvestment.

Over time, any economy with sufficiently large numbers of dollars freed up for investment will run into the problem of increasing malinvestment. Brazil ran into it in the 1960s (and are running into it again,) Japan ran into it in the mid-1980s (and is still reeling from its impact; look at government debt growth in Japan from 1990-2010) and China is running headlong into it right the fuck now, and has been since about 2005.

And, of course, the US ran into it, culminating in the housing market collapse. The US is also reeling from its impact. But, and this is the infuriating part, the US didn't have to adopt these policies. They were basically mislead by policymakers which misinterpreted macroeconomic trends and were lucky enough to have their dumb asses covered by the tech boom in the 90s.

If you don't have any debt then you have more wealth than the bottom 140,000,000.

But Britain is a socialist country, with a welfare state and government bailing out businesses and restrictions on every little aspect of life for the individual.

Yes. It is. That is the fundamental basis behind it. The government creates tax cuts for businesses in order to spur more people to start businesses, and make owning a company in America financially appealing rather than exporting those jobs over seas.
The government incentivizing business which creates job growth. That is trickle down economics.

Shitpost harder, you liberal faggot cuck.

so they get tax cuts, so what? by enabling them to grow and expand they can offer more jobs in the long run, and even have a higher tax return than letting them pay high amounts of taxes

i wouldnt even mind paying higher taxes if they would be used for specific projects that are actually helpful or efficient. but the state just keeps wasting money on shit that doesnt work but they dont give a shit, since its not their money, its ours.

instead of burning millions and millions on rapefugees we could have pumped that money into new schools, financed roads, modernized hospitals, nope gotta burn money on fugees

My point is that every system needs population growth, even something like tribalism

tariffing makes things even more expensive, would'nt the average american be able to spend less?