Most liberals believe that the best way to grow the economy is to grow "from the middle out" while conservatives believe that tax cuts for the wealthy will lead to more investment (jobs, wages, etc.).
Ignoring the morality of redistribution of wealth, what is the most effective approach for long term performance?
Other urls found in this thread:
Trickle down economics doesn't exist. It's a boogeyman created by liberals to marginalize people who believe there is a threshold for over-taxation, and at a certain point it becomes both counterproductive and unethical.
Can you explain how it's counterproductive? Genuinely curious.
Look up the Laffer Curve. When you overtax rich people they stop invested, hiring, and start hiring their money.
**they stop investing, hiring, and start hiding their money
Domestic production
Taxation is lower than for most of US history, there are more millionaires than at any point of US history.
The job market is still shit.
What does this tell us? Supply-side economics have failed.
More millionaires doesn't really mean anything because of how inflation and the population has exploded.
What has killed wages and created a monstrous gap between the poor and rich has been unchecked immigration, regardless of whatever the top tax bracket may be.
Our high corporate tax is killing entrepreneurs and is the reason why companies are leaving and hiding money in foreign banks.
To make jobs you need to help the JOB CREATORS
conservatives don't just believe tax cuts for the wealthy will grow jobs, but rather that our progressive system of taxation and the specific type of taxes we have in this system harm growth. It's a fact that lower taxes in certain forms usually means more growth, I don't even think the left argues against that. The real debate is over the role of government and how government spends money and what the effects of government spending are.
Think of it as visions of how economic growth should work:
>liberals would rather sacrifice long term growth in order to have benefits for the people like a social safety net or welfare programs, even if this comes at the expense of missed investment or taxes that have economically distorting effects.
and
>conservatives would rather have clear long term economic growth and they argue this is good because the standard of living will go up and raise people out of comparative poverty.
Thanks for the input. This clears everything up :^)
I'd drink her piss if it trickled down through the Washington DC aquifer.
The total net worth of the US is over 50 times larger than in 1950. The job market was better in 1950 nonetheless.
Mexican net migration is far lower than in the 1990s today. The job market was better in the 1990s nonetheless.
Wrong.
The political right advocates a market economy.
The political left advocates central planning.
In other words, the political right respects the laws of economics while the left ignores them and spews propaganda blaming bogeymen while the country falls apart.
tax cuts aren't for wealthy
they're for everybody
wealthy don't pay shit in taxes already in virtually every major "western" country
i have yet to see a single economically literate person on this board, fuking animals all of you
we need to back the money with silver or gold or bitcoin
This. Supplying jobs is more vital than demanding them. You can have a society full of people out of work who want to work and it won't make a bit of difference unless someone is creating jobs. When the faggy liberals talk about helping the middle first, what they mean are more and more social programs that ultimately hurt job creators and everyone else because they're not efficient and they leech directly off of the wealthy. Then leave leave your country.
What for?
Trickle down economics is a nick name for something nobody believes in, not an actual school of economics.
What I had in mind were taxes that usually only apply to the wealthy. Think capital gains, kiddie tax, estate tax, etc.
One of the prerequisites for being a leftist is to have absolutely no understanding of economics whatsoever.
"Trickle Down Economics" is not an actual economic policy. The political divide in economics is between more taxation and regulation versus less taxation and regulation.
Who do you think creates jobs? And if the gov't steals their wealth for creating those jobs why should they create any more?
Who knows anymore. Times have changed.
Socialists will reduce innovation and grow the debt unsustainably, and rich people will flee and take their taxes.
Capitalists will have us living in a society where there is no place for the vast majority of people, and resource extraction, etc. is unsustainable.
Private investment.
because we need to encourage saving not investing in the stock market
It's between less taxes and regulation vs. the long discredited failed left-wing theory of Parasite Economics - the idea that if you parasitise off rich people's wealth, eventually you won't run out.
>what is the most effective approach for long term performance?
Demand dictates growth. The consumers and as along as they can afford it are the ones who grow the a countrys economy by spending money. Taxes and other expenses of that kind don't really matter since as long as there is money to be made people will still do it as long as shit isn't super egregious.
The "middle out" holds the most merit since they are the most numerous hence and actually spend more of the money that they make than the rich. So the middle moves money around the most and that will help shit grow.
And since it depends more on the place one lives but most of the value of america money wise comes from the people and not so much the land. So since people themselves generate most of the wealth of the country then it should be more obvious that the working class should take a bit more priority over the rich. Since the less worrys they got the more likely they are to spend and facilitate the exchange and growth of money all around the country.
And also the rich benefit from a system that let them be or become rich. So paying a tad back into the system which let them , and not to disregard personal effort, get that way should be seen as patriotic.
Though no one should have blind loyalty and will arguing for ones personal interests is fine as well. Everything should more or less always strive to at least be reasonable.
How does pegging the dollar to a commodity help that?
Taxation is a form of wealth expropriation. The more wealth is expropriated, the less wealth there will be to inject back into the production process to create more wealth.
Nothing can be produced where everything has been expropriated and nothing can be expropriated where nothing has been produced.
So to speak.
>looks at golds value since 1913
are you fucking with me right now
Low corporate tax encourages entrepreneurs in the SMB market. But you're probably a millennial so you don't remember when Americans had jobs.
Dollar is already pegged to oil m8
this, i dont understand how liberals think raising taxes on the rich will work if they dont even pay taxes in the first place.
The most effective way to grow the economy is to give everybody good information about the prices of goods, and then let everybody do whatever they want with their money.
>Middle out
>trickle down
these are fucking buzzwords for retards.
What do you imply? That the gold standard prevents inflation?
Only kind of. The dollar rose as oil prices fell after 2015.
I don't understand how conservatives can simultaneously say that the rich don't pay taxes while claiming that cutting taxes for the rich brings more jobs and growth. If both those claims were true, then unemployment would be virtually nonexistent.
no it isn't, the price of oil changes every fucking day
Middle and high class should receive cuts/benefits at the same time in due proportion.
The high class might contribute for more investment and jobs, but said action is not guaranteed. The middle class accounts for the consumers and also potential new entrepreneurs.
Overall I would say that the middle class is always more important, but I recognize the importance of both groups.
The low class should never be affected with extra taxation. Its up for the government to improve education and get them free of their current hardships.
Both Trump and Hillary are plutocrats with disdain for the low class. Hillary is more caring of the middle class though, while Trump wants to enrich himself and those like him.
The laffer curve shows income from taxes, not productivity. Taxing at a lower rate will obviously reduce the amount of money raised by taxes. The laffer curve does not show what the rich do with the money they save from lower tax rates.
ALL international trade of oil is conducted in US dollars (because US and its ally Saudi Arabia control OPEC and thus the supply of oil worldwide). Since you need dollars to buy oil, and EVERYONE needs oil, it stands to reason EVERYONE needs dollars - demand for dollars equals value of dollar.
Do you think it is a coincidence that every time any oil-producing state announced that it was going to start selling oil in other currencies, a US military intervention wasn't far off? (see Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.)
So facism.
>Demand dictates growth
no it doesn't
there is demand for food in Venezuela like no tomorrow
doesn't make more food appear
productivity dictates growth
>What do you imply? That the gold standard prevents inflation?
we need to encourage saving, not investing in the stock market, as inflation encourages
That is the answer.
National Socialism
Yes, people need dollars to buy oil, this increases the inherent value of the dollar relative to other currencies.... But it's different than pinning the dollar to oil.
Pinning the dollar to oil would be a lot crazier.
During gold standard times, the inflation was far, far higher.
I'm not denying that the petrodollar exists. But there's still no visible peg between oil price and dollar. The oil price is low now, the dollar strong.
i think you're saying that wages used to rise.
Now only prices rise
Most conservatives? Bullshit you can't lead an argument with a false premise. Under trump the poor and middle class get a tax cut too. Basically negating your whole argument before it even starts. Do pol a favor and learn facts before you post.
>Friends don't let friends post stupid
What we have right now is umbrella economics where there is huge umbrella where money goes to the rich and then goes to dubai.
You know what inflation means? It means price increases. They were far more rapid in the 70s than today.
This makes no sense.
Econ student here. You give money to whoever gets the best return on it. For poor economies, this is the poor and middle class. When the poor invest in education and better healthcare, they get high returns. But this is true only for a while. At some point, the rich investing in business and financial instruments will get better returns. In general, for first world economies, you want the rich to have the money because the middle class don't know how to invest past the basics. This is why all first world nations coddles their rich.
Well it definitely doesn't trickle down when it gets squirreled away offshore.
Obviously, the dollar is not reliant only on oil, that would be suicidal, but oil price fluctuations are tightly controlled. The recent oil price drop was orchestrated by the US and Saudi Arabia to put pressure on Russia because of Crimea and had absolutely nothing to do with free market fluctuations whatsoever.
Petrodollar means that selling US Treasury bonds is easy peasy, and so many have been sold to other nations (biggest buyer being China) so that no major player has an interest in toppling the dollar, and in fact has interest in keeping the dollar strong.
This is also the reason why hydrogen-powered internal combustion is supressed even though the tech exists today - water powered cars would also mean the complete collapse of the US economy almost instantly and America would get it's own version of 1929 German inflation fun (just imagine, a little 5 year old kid builds a house for her dolls with stacks of 100$ bills)
Trump doesn't give a fuck about you, you broke loser.
Take an integral of the chart for both pre-Nixon and post gold standard, compensate for the difference in time for both ranges, and it would appear that post-gold standard inflation is worse in terms of total inflation per unit of time, whereas during the pre-Nixon era inflation spikes but is short-lived (and balanced by negative inflation).
>in the 70s
you mean when the fed had already been fucking our currency for 60 years?
lol, and exactly were is this cheaper than oil hydrogen source?
See the graph? There's no deflation after 1950. And the level we have today is lower than the 1960s. So quit making things up.
The trickle down shit is a lie. No one with money wants to give it away, they try making more money. Look at how bad shit has gotten since it began practice. Tons of cucks defend solely because its considered a rebublican idea.
Whilst the two first paragraphs sound reasonable, the third one is conspiracy theorist.
Both Bush and Obama tried to promote hydrogen cars.
>Most liberals believe that the best way to grow the economy is to grow "from the middle out"
>Party of quantitative easing.
Keep telling yourself that.
>water powered cars would also mean the complete collapse of the US economy
I'm pretty sure a water powered car is a physical impossibility
You would need water and SOME OTHER fuel
not really, we actually had greenspans(heh) so if you saved during bluespans, instead of investing in the stock market, you aren't afraid of losing everything
look at that solid bluespan that we have lived in. look at that SPIKE we had to go through with NO deflation to counteract? fuck that
*The dollar in reality is backed the might of the US Armed Forces.
Cutting taxes in general is a good thing, regardless of whom. Taxes are only useful if government can make better economic allocations than private individuals, which 9/10 it cannot. Ideally there would be no Federal income tax, but as it stands, a flat income tax is best since it is the private firms who ultimately control employment levels and if they lack any small percentage of capital due to taxation that negatively affects growth and employment. Economics isn't about looking at what government provides, it's mostly about looking at what could have been provided otherwise.
>There's no deflation after 1950.
meaning you might as well all the years together as one giant depression
That's been the 1970s and the oil price shock.
After 1979, the post-gold standard+oil shock times, se never had inflation as rapid as during gild standard times.
Wat? Deflation happened during the 1930s. Then never again in significant amount. Wanna return to the 1930s?
wasn't one of the European countries' public transport (bus) using a Hydrogen fuel cells (maybe germany, iceland, or some nordic country)? Are they still doing that or did it go bust? I remember hearing tons of shit about Germany being a leader in solar tech but you don't hear that anymore... so I guess that went bust too?
>take glass of water
>stick two electrodes in it
>get hydrogen
hydrogen powered car
water+electricity = hydrogen
burn hydrogen = energy (to move the car) + water
perhaps a more accurate descriptor would be electric/hydrogen powered car
all you need is electricity, you can keep cycling the same water over and over again without ever having to refill
>all you need is electricity, you can keep cycling the same water over and over again without ever having to refill
But where do you get the electricity from?
Electrolysis takes more energy to split the molecule up than hydrogen produces
someone explain how it's possible to have inflation when your currency is fixed to gold without either a large amount of gold appearing from somewhere or government devaluing the currency
We completely lack the infrastructure for it. BMW also gave up upon hydrogen motors, implying everyone gave up.
>lack the infrastructure
which is really why any of this shit takes so long to take off (assuming its a viable as petrol). We would probably have natural gas cars as the majority over here if there were as many Nat. Gas stations as there were petrol.
Partly this. The dollar is strong because the US has strong armed its way into international trade. Trade with other countries is like a political insurance policy; you give favorable access to US businesses, and they'll let you stay in power. If you refuse, they'll get chummy with rebel groups, ala funding and trading, to over throw you so they can get trade going again.
Encourage small businesses. In the US you take on an extremely high risk when you start your own business. You have to take out a massive loan and if your business gets successful enough, a bigger company will probably copy your idea and sell shit for cheaper, leaving you in the dust.
Really all that is needed is to break up the big businesses that destroy all competition in the US.
Not defending the water power bs, but.
You can build a nuke plant, put 2 electrodes in the ocean. Pull carbolic acid out of the ocean with electrolysis. Use high thermal chemistry from the nuke plant to turn it into kerosene. Put kerosene into planes and cars, goes into the atmosphere, atmosphere puts it back in the ocean. Start over.
Reduces petrol dependence, and saves the reef at the same time.
>what is the most effective approach for long term performance?
Ideally, you want the following:
-low taxes
-low interest rate
-low inflation
-no debt
-huge treasury
While at the same time, a very rich budget from the government, which is invested in areas of healthcare, education, welfare, security and etcethera.
That is exactly idea behind supply side economics. Since the rich want to make more money, they will expand their companies, hiring more people. However, we ended up with a culture that rewards people for doing more with less so new jobs are never created and we end up paying more for less.
Most people incorrectly see tax cuts as reaganomics when reagonomics was tax cuts for only the wealthy where as Trump wants tax cuts for everyone.
Trickle down economics works for those it was made for.
If everyone started out with the same amount of money and when the government died they took all the money and gave it to the next generation that would be cool, but it would be really fucking hard to do. Also, the government would pay for childcare completely otherwise it wouldn't work.
Don't give someone something for not doing anything. It does not imprint positively on that person, and they become reliant on things being given instead of earned. This can be witnessed in animal behavior extremely easily, so its application to humans has to work.
>TL;DR no gibs me dat
>not having flat tax
plebs
>No one with money wants to give it away, they try making more money.
They don't give it away. They use it to hire people.
Economics is basically just a buzzword to normal people for them to start spouting all of the shit they remember hearing other people say.
Most people don't understand it, don't try to understand it, and don't want to understand it.
The way I try to rationalize it to people is to ask them how big they want the government to be. They aren't just going to take money from the wealthy and give it to you. The money they take is basically the irrigation system which expands the government. The problem is we don't really know who taps that irrigation system or who really decides where it's going. In a perfect world, and a totally transparent government, it would work. But do you trust the government to do what's right?
Flat tax would make income disparity even worse.
>spend your life making something to give your children, so that they don't have to work their asses of and can live a fulfilled life doing things they want to instead of things they have to (like you did)
>nope.jpg the government is here to take all your stuff and give it to shaquilla gibsmedat and her new boyfriend mohammad ackbar and their 28 children because obviously they need it more
>now back to work goy children
FUCK COMMUNISM AND FUCK YOU FOR PROMOTING COMMUNISM
What's interesting is that current Trump tax cut proposals only cut the lowest bracket from 15% to 12%. He originally said 0% then changed it.
So if you make under 15,000 dollars a year (20% of the population) you save about 200 dollars from Trump's tax plan.
In fact only 20% of the proposed tax cuts will go to 80% of the population. 80% of the tax cuts will help only the top 20%.
is that cheaper than just getting your kerosene from the oil distillation process ? Nuclear plants are probably the best enegery producer tho... as long as you follow the safety codes that plants tend to break to save operating costs.
>Oil refinery doesn't follow codes= plant explodes or oil spill in a small part of the ocean
>Nuclear plant melts down = you can't go around the area for about 100yrs
Exactly, a good idea in theory, but abused in practice.
How's that working out?
Thanks to tax loopholes and the fact that our tax code is a book 3 inches thick, rich people in America already pay nothing in taxes and sometimes get a tax refund on the nothing they paid. When they get more money, they just sit on it. They didn't get rich by giving their money away. That's why supply side economics failed over and over again and anybody who is not a billionaire and actually thinks it works is a chump. It's just an excuse they use to convince idiots that giving your money to rich people will make you richer.
Best approach -> Pay no taxes the federal gob is funded by tariffs, there's no jewish banking system.
>MR PUTIN, IM USA