[Talon Karride]The unflappable delusions of many Republicans

Only now, at the end, do you understand.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 665
Joined: 2002-09-15 10:37am
Location: Toronto

Post by The Dude »

SirNitram wrote:That's the thing, retard boy. The poverty level workers of the world don't have much savings, the top ten percent do. This allows the money to spend more time working on improving the economy <snip>, instead of instantly vanishing into a rich guy's bank account.
Just to kill a common misconception:

Money invested in bank accounts does not disappear into a black hole any more than does money captured in taxes or spent on goods and services.

Banks don't pay interest for the privilege of having your cash sit on their Scrooge McDuck-style money mountain, after all.
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

The Dude wrote:
SirNitram wrote:That's the thing, retard boy. The poverty level workers of the world don't have much savings, the top ten percent do. This allows the money to spend more time working on improving the economy <snip>, instead of instantly vanishing into a rich guy's bank account.
Just to kill a common misconception:

Money invested in bank accounts does not disappear into a black hole any more than does money captured in taxes or spent on goods and services.

Banks don't pay interest for the privilege of having your cash sit on their Scrooge McDuck-style money mountain, after all.
If I left you with this impression, I apologize. A few posts up I noted that even bank accounts aren't true money holes; there are no money holes. Except that mattress you stuff your singles in.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 665
Joined: 2002-09-15 10:37am
Location: Toronto

Post by The Dude »

SirNitram wrote:If I left you with this impression, I apologize. A few posts up I noted that even bank accounts aren't true money holes; there are no money holes. Except that mattress you stuff your singles in.
And even that is only temporary. In any case, you've brought up a good point that most people either misunderstand or have never really thought about: how much money is out there is not nearly as important as how, and how fast, it circulates.
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

The Dude wrote:
SirNitram wrote:If I left you with this impression, I apologize. A few posts up I noted that even bank accounts aren't true money holes; there are no money holes. Except that mattress you stuff your singles in.
And even that is only temporary. In any case, you've brought up a good point that most people either misunderstand or have never really thought about: how much money is out there is not nearly as important as how, and how fast, it circulates.
Quite. When money ascends through the whole structure, you get more 'mileage' than just stirring up the flow at the top levels. Sort of the difference between cleaning water by pumping cleaner up from the bottom, and just making a film of soap on the top.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Iceberg
ASVS Master of Laundry
Posts: 4068
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:23am
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Iceberg »

Kerry may be a douche, but at least his supporters don't want you dead if you disagree with him. That, in the end, is as good a reason as any to vote for him.
"Carriers dispense fighters, which dispense assbeatings." - White Haven

| Hyperactive Gundam Pilot of MM | GALE | ASVS | Cleaners | Kibologist (beable) | DFB |
If only one rock and roll song echoes into tomorrow
There won't be anything to keep you from the distant morning glow.
I'm not a man. I just portrayed one for 15 years.
User avatar
theski
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4327
Joined: 2003-01-28 03:20pm
Location: Hurricane Watching

Post by theski »

Iceberg wrote:Kerry may be a douche, but at least his supporters don't want you dead if you disagree with him. That, in the end, is as good a reason as any to vote for him.
3

What ,you getting death threats up in Winona....?? :P :lol:
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
User avatar
The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 665
Joined: 2002-09-15 10:37am
Location: Toronto

Post by The Dude »

SirNitram wrote:Quite. When money ascends through the whole structure, you get more 'mileage' than just stirring up the flow at the top levels. Sort of the difference between cleaning water by pumping cleaner up from the bottom, and just making a film of soap on the top.
No offense, but that's a horrible analogy. I mean, I guess I could say the best option would be to put an impeller in the tank, but what the fuck would that mean? :)

I think you're oversimplifying something that not even Nobel-winning economists agree on. You can argue effectively that the US has gone overboard on the supply-side end, but not so effectively that its opposite is to be desired.
User avatar
Iceberg
ASVS Master of Laundry
Posts: 4068
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:23am
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Iceberg »

theski wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Kerry may be a douche, but at least his supporters don't want you dead if you disagree with him. That, in the end, is as good a reason as any to vote for him.
3

What ,you getting death threats up in Winona....?? :P :lol:
Not only that, but every liberal nationwide has gotten two book-length death threats from Ann Coulter (Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism) and Sean Hannity (Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism). And the utter lack of reaction from the conservative side of the table indicates tacit approval.
"Carriers dispense fighters, which dispense assbeatings." - White Haven

| Hyperactive Gundam Pilot of MM | GALE | ASVS | Cleaners | Kibologist (beable) | DFB |
If only one rock and roll song echoes into tomorrow
There won't be anything to keep you from the distant morning glow.
I'm not a man. I just portrayed one for 15 years.
User avatar
The Dark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7378
Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
Location: Promoting ornithological awareness

Post by The Dark »

The Dude wrote:
SirNitram wrote:If I left you with this impression, I apologize. A few posts up I noted that even bank accounts aren't true money holes; there are no money holes. Except that mattress you stuff your singles in.
And even that is only temporary. In any case, you've brought up a good point that most people either misunderstand or have never really thought about: how much money is out there is not nearly as important as how, and how fast, it circulates.
True, but it seems that granting negative income tax credits to the underclass, which has always led to increased spending in the past, would increase the velocity of money to a greater extent than a tax cut for the wealthy, who already have sufficient income for their needs and for reasonable luxury wants. Of course, the money supply is still important (cf the Great Depression, when cutting back the money supply caused a backlash through the market), but I agree that velocity of money tends to have a greater effect on the economy than just the money supply.

By the way, a book to recommend for economics: Myth and Measurement, by David Card and Alan B. Kreuger. It was published back in 1995, but there's still a lot of debate over it. I found out about it through John Kennan's paper in the JEL, which I was analyzing for my course in labor economics.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
BattleTech for SilCore
Middleclass
Youngling
Posts: 137
Joined: 2004-04-12 08:41pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Middleclass »

Axis Kast wrote:
Hey, thanks for ignoring the major point. The money, once spent on consumers goods, ends up in the hands of the people who make the investments.
No, they are consuming. They are not investing. They are purchasing commodities immediately rather than offering up capital for long-term projects – which is eminently more profitable.
OK, maybe you'll catch it this time around. The money spent in consumption does not mystically disappear. It goes into the pockets of the suppliers. Quit acting like the investors aren't seeing (at the very least) most of this money.
The money will “end up getting invested” only after it has incurred the opportunity costs of significant redistribution. Along the way, you’ll have discouraged as much as encouraged job growth by raising the incentives to remain unemployed.
Except that I will have increased demand as well. Whoops, ignored that rather heroically didnt ya? You know what? Since you seem to be harping on one little niggling aspect of my arguement (the welfare part) lets ditch it. New proposal: No taxes, income or payroll, on anyone making less that $60,000 / year. There go your cost of tax collection strawmen (and by the way, I would love to see proof that the cost of collecting taxes on an individual goes up if you increase his tax rate, which seems to be what you were saying).
Consumption is not investment. But, as a self-proclaimed economist, shouldn’t you already know this?

In your proposed framework of “trickle-up” economics, the money is invested only at the final stage – only after the original tax yield has been collected, sorted, redistributed, and moved through the economy where individuals are likely to hold any given fraction as savings.
Read your macro text again, dumbass. Investment = savings. I think someone just made the point that financial institutions arent hiding this money in a sock, they are investing it. The difference between 100 lower class people collectively investing $1000 and one upper class person investing the same isnt there. Theyre identical.
And I know that conumption is not investment. I know that I know this, because I never said it, you dishonest little weasel. What I was saying is that more money in lower income brackets will increase consumption, which will increase demand (and therefore supply), and the additional revenue in the firms will be used for investment. Also there is Mike's excellent point that upper income investment is much more likely to go into foriegn countries than lower or middle income, such as the Euroyen market or stocks traded on overseas markets.

My suggestion to you is to go to class without partisan blinders on; economics is a beautifully non partisan science. Ill be the first to agree that some of economic theory supports Republican beliefs, but by no stretch does all of it.
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

No duh. This is a strike against the fact this works on multiple levels of the economy instead of just the top how?
Because of transaction costs, dipshit. There are frictional costs incurred at every stage of the redistribution process – collection, reallocation, consumption, and finally, investment.
Again, you pretend there's a money hole for consumption. Trickle Up would induce more consumption and, since the money will make it to the upper echelons, induce more investment. I explained this, but you're going to lie.
Trickle-up induces less investment, since the money is first filtered by other actors before it reaches firms.

Nobody’s pretending there is a “money hole for consumption” – but there are depreciations that take place along the way before that money reaches the end investor. If there weren’t, then there wouldn’t be a question of whether there are economic policy options, since every policy would ultimately have the same effect.
So this refutes providing a large scale tax break to the lowest earners how? Oh yea, it doesn't: It is simply normal Tiger-Man logic that if you ignore a chunk of the argument and focus on a minor part, you can defeat the whole thing by knocking over straw.
It denies an entire pillar of his original argument, you dishonest fuck. It’s a rebuttal to one element, not the whole thing.

Re-fucking-tard. Money doesn't disappear once spent on consumption, you pathetic little monkey. It is now in the hands of the retailer, who then spends money to replenish their stores. The money is now in the hands of the producers, part of which flaps up the chain to the investors. But again, this is basic objective reality. It's not surprising you can't get it.
But, as every economist knows, investment is preferable to consumption in the long term, since it provides for greater wealth down the road.

Again, you strawman the argument from 'Tax breaks and some programs' into 'Just welfare' and pretend this is logical. Go play in traffic, troll.
It was an entire element of his argument. It’s not my fault you can’t find an excuse for him.

Whoop de shit. This is a strike against the fact this works on multiple levels of the economy instead of just the top how?
Evidence that consumption is an inferior means of developing the economy as compared to investment/savings, moron.

That's the thing, retard boy. The poverty level workers of the world don't have much savings, the top ten percent do. This allows the money to spend more time working on improving the economy(You are acquainted with reality sufficiently to understand that more people buying stuff is good for the economy, right? Or are you still out to lunch that badly?), instead of instantly vanishing into a rich guy's bank account.
First you argue there is no “money hole” when poor people consume, but that there is a money hole if money is ever in the proximity of anyone wealthy. Choose a side and stick to it.

Again with the strawman, again Axis thinks this proves something when he knocks over straw. It's pitiful to watch. As for the investment yield being lower, yes.. But the economy has been stimulated on more than just the investment level by the end of the day.
Investment being preferable to consumption, we should usually aim for it to be higher – especially now, when we have a dirth of savings in the economy.
Which do the exact same thing. But hey, be pedantic.
Firms reinvest to remain competitive; this idea that the wealthy “sit” on their funds anymore than anybody else is utterly baseless.

Quite. When money ascends through the whole structure, you get more 'mileage' than just stirring up the flow at the top levels. Sort of the difference between cleaning water by pumping cleaner up from the bottom, and just making a film of soap on the top.
And yet, in the end, less water comes out, some having leaked along the way or been collected by less efficient users (i.e. government).

OK, maybe you'll catch it this time around. The money spent in consumption does not mystically disappear. It goes into the pockets of the suppliers. Quit acting like the investors aren't seeing (at the very least) most of this money.
That’s the point, idiot. We want investors to see virtually all of it, because when they do, they expand operations.

Except that I will have increased demand as well. Whoops, ignored that rather heroically didnt ya? You know what? Since you seem to be harping on one little niggling aspect of my arguement (the welfare part) lets ditch it. New proposal: No taxes, income or payroll, on anyone making less that $60,000 / year. There go your cost of tax collection strawmen (and by the way, I would love to see proof that the cost of collecting taxes on an individual goes up if you increase his tax rate, which seems to be what you were saying).
That would be a ridiculous proposition because government income would fall precipitously. This idea that anything beneficial can come from “soaping the rich” is ridiculous, since we rely on the most successful members of our economy to save the most.
Read your macro text again, dumbass. Investment = savings. I think someone just made the point that financial institutions arent hiding this money in a sock, they are investing it. The difference between 100 lower class people collectively investing $1000 and one upper class person investing the same isnt there. Theyre identical.
Then why the fuck do economists debate the long vs. short term effects of saving over consumption, genius? :roll:
And I know that conumption is not investment. I know that I know this, because I never said it, you dishonest little weasel. What I was saying is that more money in lower income brackets will increase consumption, which will increase demand (and therefore supply), and the additional revenue in the firms will be used for investment. Also there is Mike's excellent point that upper income investment is much more likely to go into foriegn countries than lower or middle income, such as the Euroyen market or stocks traded on overseas markets.
The resulting investment will be lower than it might have been had government never undertaken redistribution at all – and the ultimate impact will still be greater job creation.

Furthermore, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing Americans to invest in foreign business, since we tax that income, and since, America being a leading economic powerhouse, it still attracts a significant fraction of that investment in the most lucrative sectors anyway.
Middleclass
Youngling
Posts: 137
Joined: 2004-04-12 08:41pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by Middleclass »

That would be a ridiculous proposition because government income would fall precipitously. This idea that anything beneficial can come from “soaping the rich” is ridiculous, since we rely on the most successful members of our economy to save the most.
Of course it is rediculous. If youll bother to look, in my original post I said that trickle up is only marginally better than trickle down, if at all. Im not arguing that it is a viable system, Im arguing that it is an equal system.
Read your macro text again, dumbass. Investment = savings. I think someone just made the point that financial institutions arent hiding this money in a sock, they are investing it. The difference between 100 lower class people collectively investing $1000 and one upper class person investing the same isnt there. Theyre identical.
Then why the fuck do economists debate the long vs. short term effects of saving over consumption, genius? :roll:
Erm. You do realize that that paragraph was a response to your statement that trickle up is less effecient because of fractional saving, right? It wasnt addressing consumption. Perhaps you need more reading skills.
The resulting investment will be lower than it might have been had government never undertaken redistribution at all – and the ultimate impact will still be greater job creation.

Furthermore, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing Americans to invest in foreign business, since we tax that income, and since, America being a leading economic powerhouse, it still attracts a significant fraction of that investment in the most lucrative sectors anyway.
Number one, it seems like if its the upper class thats getting a tax break, its just the govt. keeping its hand off, but if its a lower class tax break, its redistribution. Call a spade a spade.
Number two, no there is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing people to invest overseas. But it is less effecient for our economy than domestic investment. My point was that upper class investors are much more likely to choose the overseas, ineffecient for our economy approach than a group of lower class investors.

Damn, I hate to say this, but I gotta bow out till Monday. If the thread is still alive, Ill be back, and of course you can PM me if it does die Axis. This is too much fun.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Kast, can you think of a situation where it would be unwise to lower taxes on the wealthy? Because I'll bet that you can't, which would only go to prove that you are relying on dogma rather than logic. There is no such thing as a control system whose inputs should be the same regardless of the load, and there's no such thing as an economic plan which always applies regardless of the condition of the various parameters of the economy.

PS. I do like the way you point out every flaw in trickle-up economics but ignore every flaw in trickle-down economics. Do you know why some people derisively refer to trickle-down theory as "pushing with a string"?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Trickle down economics: they might as well say they're pissing on you.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Agrajag
Padawan Learner
Posts: 162
Joined: 2004-09-08 07:48pm
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by Agrajag »

Videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The video taken by KSTP of St. Paul on April 18, 2003, could reinforce suggestions that tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted after the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The video was broadcast nationally Thursday on ABC.

------------

Now let's hear more delusions about how this is the fault of the troops (Gulianni) or that the munitions weren't even there (Bush and the rest including Hannity and company). I have a suspicion that the press was right yesterday when they noted that Bush was slow to respond to these attacks and the reason is because they knew it was true. When they THOUGHT they could snow people with the rushed Pentagon satellite shots, then they started saying, "Oh, they weren't there" but now that this proof negates all that, they'll probably act like they've never even heard of the place.
User avatar
Einhander Sn0m4n
Insane Railgunner
Posts: 18630
Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.

Post by Einhander Sn0m4n »

Vympel wrote:Trickle down economics: they might as well say they're pissing on you.
Why did they ever think Trickle Down would work with a substance with essentially negative mass? Apparently either they're not well-versed on their theoretical physics, or WE'VE been taught to look at the whole fucking model UPSIDE DOWN! The multinationals and the government can be viewed as gigantic black holes, and we're just tiny little rockets straining against the economic gravitational forces generated by the huge masses of money with our own comparatively ephemeral, ethereal, damn-near-nonexistent wages...

Don't think how they teach us to.
Image Image
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10702
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Post by Elfdart »

Don't trickle down my back and try to tell me it's raining!
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Kast, can you think of a situation where it would be unwise to lower taxes on the wealthy?
Of course; we should not lower the tax rate on the wealthy precipitously.

In general, I support the lowering of corporate over personal income tax.
The_Nice_Guy
Jedi Knight
Posts: 566
Joined: 2002-12-16 02:09pm
Location: Tinny Red Dot

Post by The_Nice_Guy »

As a note of interest, I remember reading somewhere that Milton Friedman supported negative income taxes.

Trickle up, or upflow, a personal term, could work. There's no guarantee it would, unlike trickle down which has had some actual evidence of its validity. Trickle up also could have the detrimental effect of curbing government income, since to pay those below the mandatory level, the state has to drain even more off the rich, unless they want to cut healthcare, defense, etc. Not really a big problem; beyond a certain level of richness, the rich don't need to care. I've read that the asset level is somewhere at, IIRC, 5 million US dollars. Probably explains why so many actors, filthy rich businessmen like Soros, etc support Kerry and his probably higher taxation. It doesn't affect them much.

Carefully balanced, upflow could work. By increasing the tax rate marginally on the filthy rich, say, a 5% increase, that could probably be enough to support negative income tax for a lot of americans, while the very rich would be happy with their own altruism. The middle class wins by having tax rates maintained at present levels AND having increased profit, with more money for investment. And the cycle then continues with more jobs, blah, blah.

Finally, I don't like the name trickle down. The connotations are already negative.

TWG
The Laughing Man
Post Reply