Poor will be helped by tax bill........

[OldWiseGuy]

dp

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Again, so? You were poor.

I was addressing your 'sense' that I didn't know what it means to be poor.

could be if youd want it to.
So my initial point that rich people need to buy more yachts to get this trickle down going has been...? Ignored?

Trickle down isn't their intention. It is a natural result.

 

[rambot]

I was addressing your 'sense' that I didn't know what it means to be poor.



Trickle down isn't their intention. It is a natural result.

it is absolutely not the natural result and if you lived in the 80s in the us you should know that.
Why not trickle up? Makes infinitely more sense...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Trickle down isn't their intention. It is a natural result.

Except it's not -- the wealthy who let their wealth trickle away from them don't stay wealthy for very long.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

it is absolutely not the natural result and if you lived in the 80s in the us you should know that.
Why not trickle up? Makes infinitely more sense...

Trickle up, trickle down, trickle across........money moves all over the place. You can't stop it.

 

[rambot]

Trickle up, trickle down, trickle across........money moves all over the place. You can't stop it.

But you and goverments can use it intelligently.
Whats your problem with trickle up?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except it's not -- the wealthy who let their wealth trickle away from them don't stay wealthy for very long.

They buy assets with their money, which increases their wealth, and the money trickles away/down/up/across (who knows where it goes). Money itself is not an appreciable/appreciating asset such as real estate or stocks. Wealth is measured in terms of money but not all wealth is money.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you and governments can use it intelligently.
What's your problem with trickle up?

No problem. We can talk about trickle up. But someone's ox will certainly be gored as well.

The redeeming thing about misspent money is that it will come around again pretty fast, giving us a chance to do better with it. When I was young and stupid my paycheck rarely lasted until the next one. Fortunately there was always a next one.

 

[Aldebaran]

Except it's not -- the wealthy who let their wealth trickle away from them don't stay wealthy for very long.

It doesn't "trickle away". It's invested, and then others benefit from it.

 

[dgiharris]

Trickle up, trickle down, trickle across........money moves all over the place. You can't stop it.

Yes, you absolutely can. Here are a few ways off the top of my head.
#1) You don't spend it-- ever.
#2) You delay spending it. Not spending money for 20 years has the same effect as lighting that same amount of money on fire during that same 20 year period.
#3) Transferring the money into "something" that invalidates the money's liquidity. You often hear the phrase "My money is tied up in..." Well, that tied up money can't trickle anywhere.
#4) Putting money in some sort of "Shelter" where it is unavailable and unusable during the time period it is in the shelter
#5) Having the "Shelter" depreciate while the money is within it.
#6) Spending that money in a different non-local economy

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, you absolutely can. Here are a few ways off the top of my head.
#1) You don't spend it-- ever.
#2) You delay spending it. Not spending money for 20 years has the same effect as lighting that same amount of money on fire during that same 20 year period.
#3) Transferring the money into "something" that invalidates the money's liquidity. You often hear the phrase "My money is tied up in..." Well, that tied up money can't trickle anywhere.
#4) Putting money in some sort of "Shelter" where it is unavailable and unusable during the time period it is in the shelter
#5) Having the "Shelter" depreciate while the money is within it.
#6) Spending that money in a different non-local economy

The only way this is possible is to hide it in a mattress or destroy it. And even then it won't work as the Fed gauges the amount of M1, or actual cash, in the economy at all times. If it falls below a certain level paper money is issued to replenish it. Also the action of one person is insignificant in the big picture.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/.../pub_assets/pdf/re/2013/b/reader_exchange.pdf

 

[dgiharris]

The only way this is possible is to hide it in a mattress or destroy it. And even then it won't work as the Fed gauges the amount of M1, or actual cash, in the economy at all times. If it falls below a certain level paper money is issued to replenish it. Also the action of one person is insignificant in the big picture.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/.../pub_assets/pdf/re/2013/b/reader_exchange.pdf

I just gave you several ways in which it is possible.

Also, you do realize that "printing money" to deal with the economy does not bode well for said economy.

If Company XYZ decides to hoard $2 billion dollars and put it in tax shelters, the government flooding the market with an extra $2 billion dollars doesn't magically put $2 billion dollars back into the economy. That is not how it works at all. What ends up happening is the value of the dollar gets driven down collectively by $2 billion dollars when compared to rest-of-world currency. This is why governments can't print their way out of their economic problems.

Yes, the government does have a bit of a "control mechanism" when trying to stimulate the economy by manipulating the federal reserve, but that in no way shape or form should that be thought of as the government having the magical ability to pump cash into the economy whenever they want. That is not how the federal reserve works. Yes, the government can "incentivize" banks and financial institutions to loan money but ultimately those institutions have to be willing to do it.

But back to this notion/idea that companies hoarding money is no big deal and that trickle down economics would still work "even if" companies and wealthy people decided to hoard money... You are now arguing against yourself. The whole premise and argument of trickle down economics is that the money trickles down. Now, you are trying to say that "even if" the rich hoard the money it's okay because now the government can magically pump money into the economy to offset the hoarding? That is a completely separate argument from trickle down economics. You do realize that right?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It doesn't "trickle away". It's invested, and then others benefit from it.

Even if those others are bankers and Wall Street -- the same people Donald criticized when he was styling himself as a man of the people.

Of course, now that the people have fallen for it, there's no reason to keep up the charade.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I just gave you several ways in which it is possible.

Also, you do realize that "printing money" to deal with the economy does not bode well for said economy.

If Company XYZ decides to hoard $2 billion dollars and put it in tax shelters, the government flooding the market with an extra $2 billion dollars doesn't magically put $2 billion dollars back into the economy. That is not how it works at all. What ends up happening is the value of the dollar gets driven down collectively by $2 billion dollars when compared to rest-of-world currency. This is why governments can't print their way out of their economic problems.

Yes, the government does have a bit of a "control mechanism" when trying to stimulate the economy by manipulating the federal reserve, but that in no way shape or form should that be thought of as the government having the magical ability to pump cash into the economy whenever they want. That is not how the federal reserve works. Yes, the government can "incentivize" banks and financial institutions to loan money but ultimately those institutions have to be willing to do it.

But back to this notion/idea that companies hoarding money is no big deal and that trickle down economics would still work "even if" companies and wealthy people decided to hoard money... You are now arguing against yourself. The whole premise and argument of trickle down economics is that the money trickles down. Now, you are trying to say that "even if" the rich hoard the money it's okay because now the government can magically pump money into the economy to offset the hoarding? That is a completely separate argument from trickle down economics. You do realize that right?

You gave me several ways that don't take money out of circulation. As I said the only was to take money out of circulation is to hide actual currency in a mattress, etc.

The subject is hoarding actual currency away from the market, as in stuffing it into an actual mattress. I don't know what you mean by "tax shelters" used by the rich to 'hoard' money. No rich person in their right mind keeps their money out of the market, not when there's always profits to be had by keeping it in play somewhere.

 

[Aldebaran]

Even if those others are bankers and Wall Street -- the same people Donald criticized when he was styling himself as a man of the people.

Of course, now that the people have fallen for it, there's no reason to keep up the charade.

Do you even know what Wall Street is? The NYSE is there, and anybody with a retirement plan is invested in stocks. Plenty of people invest to retire--not just the richest .00000001 percent, or whatever number is used to label the evil of society these days.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you even know what Wall Street is?

The boogeyman of Donald's campaign... but we're not allowed to remember that.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

People don't ask because they don't think about asking, much like guys who are lost won't ask for directions. It's a pride thing.

I disagree. I think it is often because those who boast most on the internet have the least to boast about in reality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

COOL <
but I knew someone who lived on a sub ;;; he got over $50,000 per year income......

But I'll bet his 'house' was 'under water'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I disagree. I think it is often because those who boast most on the internet have the least to boast about in reality.

The reality is that few reveal much about themselves, especially those who constantly criticize the positions of others (they may live in 'glass houses' themselves). Many find forums like this a good place to vent frustrations occurring in their own lives. I understand that and try to be circumspect, if not compassionate.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

The reality is that few reveal much about themselves, especially those who constantly criticize the positions of others (they may live in 'glass houses' themselves). Many find forums like this a good place to vent frustrations occurring in their own lives. I understand that and try to be circumspect, if not compassionate.

I like this. Good for you.