Trump nailed when said.......

[joshua 1 9]

I redefined it to make it understandable.

You can understand Reaganomics? I think what Trump says is that if the economy is good then everyone benefits. That is different from Reaganomics where somehow helping the rich helps the poor through trickle down economics. If the economy was good then even black people would have more jobs. So they would be better off with Trump. Hillary's plan is to take the inheritance away from people who work and give it to the welfare people that do not work. This goes back to what the blacks have been told by the leaders in their community that they were slaves so somehow people owe money to them. They do not understand that entitlement is not a free gift, it goes to the people that have earned it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can understand Reaganomics? I think what Trump says is that if the economy is good then everyone benefits. That is different from Reaganomics where somehow helping the rich helps the poor through trickle down economics. If the economy was good then even black people would have more jobs. So they would be better off with Trump. Hillary's plan is to take the inheritance away from people who work and give it to the welfare people that do not work. This goes back to what the blacks have been told by the leaders in their community that they were slaves so somehow people owe money to them. They do not understand that entitlement is not a free gift, it goes to the people that have earned it.

Utter nonsense. Trump has stolen so many of Reagan's ideas -- including his failed economic policies -- to portray himself as Reagan 2.0.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You can understand Reaganomics? I think what Trump says is that if the economy is good then everyone benefits. That is different from Reaganomics where somehow helping the rich helps the poor through trickle down economics. If the economy was good then even black people would have more jobs. So they would be better off with Trump. Hillary's plan is to take the inheritance away from people who work and give it to the welfare people that do not work. This goes back to what the blacks have been told by the leaders in their community that they were slaves so somehow people owe money to them. They do not understand that entitlement is not a free gift, it goes to the people that have earned it.

All macroeconomics is trickle down regardless of what it is called.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it good.

Yeah, but Mr. Obvious says: if something isn't illegal, it's not illegal. Whether it's "good" or not is a better of perception, and of no matter. What would you like to do about it?

 

[PeachyKeane]

All macroeconomics is trickle down regardless of what it is called.

No. Trickle-down theory is part supply-side economics. This is different from demand-side economics. Both are Macroeconomic theories.

 

[PeachyKeane]

It perpetuates the thoughtless, greedy, unaccountable, often reckless 'silent (and often not so silent) partner' in the nation's business.

The stock market is legal. There is no specific law about being thoughtless, greedy or even reckless. There's nothing illegal about being a silent partner. We live in a capitalist society, and we try to be as free a market as possible.

You seem to not be comfortable with capitalism or free markets. Perhaps you'd prefer living in a place like China.

 

[PeachyKeane]

So, if you lower the taxes on EVERYONE, the lower wage earners have more money to spend... they buy more product which means more product needs to be produced and jobs are required to meet the additional demand. At the same time, when you lower the tax rate on the wealthy, they will expand, not leave the country, and make better profit (which even with a less % paid in taxes means they still pay more before their income went up more) and everyone benefits.

That seems like it should work, right? However, demand rises almost instantaneously, and supply takes time. So, when demand goes up for something without the supply to meet it, what immediately happens is the price goes up. When the price goes up, we experience inflation. Now, we can hope that supply meets demand fast enough that it negates inflation, but it's pretty hard to get out in front of it. The best-case scenario is that supply-side economics will keep things right where they are, rather than make anything better. The more likely scenario is that it will cause inflation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So, if you lower the taxes on EVERYONE, the lower wage earners have more money to spend... they buy more product which means more product needs to be produced and jobs are required to meet the additional demand. At the same time, when you lower the tax rate on the wealthy, they will expand, not leave the country, and make better profit (which even with a less % paid in taxes means they still pay more before their income went up more) and everyone benefits.

Except everyone didn't benefit... the wealthy benefited, to be sure, but how does lowering the tax rate stop them from leaving the country? It doesn't. What incentive do they have to expand here as opposed to elsewhere? None. What incentive do the wealthy have to funnel their saved money back into the local economy, as opposed to saving it, or investing it abroad? None.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It should be noted that Donald Trump benefited from Reaganomics throughout the 1980s... And what did he do?

...moved his businesses overseas and paid no taxes.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The stock market is legal. There is no specific law about being thoughtless, greedy or even reckless. There's nothing illegal about being a silent partner. We live in a capitalist society, and we try to be as free a market as possible.

You seem to not be comfortable with capitalism or free markets. Perhaps you'd prefer living in a place like China.

Well then, that lets me off the hook. "Ya pays yer money and takes yer chances."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. Trickle-down theory is part supply-side economics. This is different from demand-side economics. Both are Macroeconomic theories.

Much of what is called 'demand' is artificially ginned up through advertising, and is 'proven' through test marketing.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Much of what is called 'demand' is artificially ginned up through advertising, and is 'proven' through test marketing.

What.

Demand is simply how willing people are to buy a given product.

 

[variant]

It perpetuates the thoughtless, greedy, unaccountable, often reckless 'silent (and often not so silent) partner' in the nation's business.

The supply side economist that hates the stock market. Brilliant.

(what is it you think happens with all that money we give to rich people in supply side economics which we hope will trickle down?)

You think it creates jobs? Very funny:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-every-job-created-companies-spent-296k-on-buybacks-2015-11-02

The wealthy, whom supply side economics generally serves sees the American worker as a bad investment. So much so that they would rather invest 5 years of salary in buying back their equity in the stock market for every new worker to expand their business.

So, you're supporting policies that mainly serve to enrich investors, while decrying the stock market, neat.

 

[variant]

Much of what is called 'demand' is artificially ginned up through advertising, and is 'proven' through test marketing.

Demand comes from people needing or wanting to purchase goods and services (and having the money to do so).

We've shifted to creating demand for investments while lowering the real world stuff actually produced.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The wealthy, whom supply side economics generally serves sees the American worker as a bad investment. So much so that they would rather invest 5 years of salary in buying back their equity in the stock market for every new worker to expand their business.

Why is a company obligated to expand and employ more workers with it's profits?

I applaud any company that buys back it's stock, unless it is manipulating it's value. It is ridding itself of the aforementioned silent partner. I did much the same when I retired the mortgage on my rental property.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Why is a company obligated to expand and employ more workers with it's profits?

Actually, from a business ethics standpoint, it might be. If that's the best way to bring higher profits to shareholders, then yes, they are obligated to expand. That's often the case.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Your view of demand is incredibly faulty.

First advertising does not increase demand, it increases market share.

Second demand is present in the absence of supply. People didn't want smartphones because they were invented, smartphones were invented because people wanted them.

If your view of demand were correct no product would ever fail. By creating demand would appear to make it viable. We know that the is not true. We know that products fail or succeed based on whether demand for it drives price above or below the cost to produce it. In other words, demand, not supply, is the pump in the supply-demand cycle.

Denying the effects of marketing is pretty silly, IMO. People often don't (yet) want a specific product, but they do want to be happy, feel loved, be respected, be fashionable, be more attractive, etc. Advertisers then take a new product and frame its presentation in a way that convinces the consumer that by buying the product, s/he will be happier/more fashionable/etc. The advertisers don't invent demand for those feelings, but they do invent the association between those feelings and new products.

 

[variant]

Why is a company obligated to expand and employ more workers with it's profits?

No, they aren't obligated, which is why the wealth doesn't 'trickle down'. Doing what you can to enable companies to improve economic conditions doesn't create demand for their product so, the wealthy just get wealthier.

I applaud any company that buys back it's stock, unless it is manipulating it's value. It is ridding itself of the aforementioned silent partner. I did much the same when I retired the mortgage on my rental property.

You definitely buy back stock to increase it's price. Rewarding your silent partners.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Denying the effects of marketing is pretty silly, IMO. People often don't (yet) want a specific product, but they do want to be happy, feel loved, be respected, be fashionable, be more attractive, etc. Advertisers then take a new product and frame its presentation in a way that convinces the consumer that by buying the product, s/he will be happier/more fashionable/etc. The advertisers don't invent demand for those feelings, but they do invent the association between those feelings and new products.

Yes, but not from an economic perspective. Demand is merely the measure of how willing and able people are to buy a product.

For instance, people will buy more milk when it's $.50 a gallon, compared to $5 a gallon. You can try to change the demand curve with advertising, but that doesn't change what the measure of demand is.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yes, but not from an economic perspective. Demand is merely the measure of how willing and able people are to buy a product.

For instance, people will buy more milk when it's $.50 a gallon, compared to $5 a gallon. That's a measure of demand.

Right. But advertising seeks to push overall demand, not just market share.