The assumption that the “trickle down did not happen” is questionable.
Let me guess… republican? Kidding, kidding.
In all seriousness though, can you explain to me how it is questionable?
The boom of the Clinton years may very likely have been the result of Reagonomics.
While this is true, the truth lies in that Bill was negating a negative. Let me clarify, his increases of taxes on the wealthiest brackets and tax deductions on small businesses was in direct opposition to Reagan’s policies. As such, the boom of which you speak was the result of a reversal of Reagan’s policies.
Again, I would love to hear any commentary on why this might not be true.
If you want to worry about redistribution from the poor to the rich, worry about inflation.
This confuses the point. Inflation is not a cause, it is an effect. Inflation is the result of rising relative prices and a corresponding decrease in purchasing power, right? Well, in economics this is called the Income Effect.
Moreover, policies that grant large corporations selectively advantageous tax cuts creates barriers to entry in the market. This creates a monopoly. And what do we know about monopolies? They’re price SETTERS. This also contributes to a rise in relative prices and a corresponding decrease in purchasing power. Again, inflation is the RESULT, not the CAUSE.
Then, you are mixing tax-cuts, outsourcing, public debt and globalization which means that all you have is an opinion, as in gut feeling. The fact that you have “strong feelings” about this does not change this.
Since it wasn’t clear, allow me to put “strong feelings” in context. In the context of which I wrote, “strong feelings” meant “strong inference” and this “strong inference” stems from tracing money and policy trails. Of course I cannot PROVE it! But if we look at simple principles of economics and political theory, the pieces “unstrugglingly” (yes, I know this is not a word lol) fit.
That said, I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.[/quote]
A. You assume that economic measures like raisng or lowering taxes take effect asap- That is unrealistic.
I assume that deregulations and tax decreases take some time to work, f.E. because there must be enough accumulated savings to make riskier investments.
So, Reagans politics consequences became apparent during ClintonÂ´s term. Clinton reaped what Reagan sow.
B. Inflation is the result of the government inflating the supply of paper money. That is why prices rise, not the other way around. Were the money supply held constant prices would slowly drop, which would be a mild deflation.
While it is true that some things still might raise the price of one particular good (f.e the destruction of refineries in New Orleans) overall inflation is not caused by this because other prices correspondingly drop.
C. True, most monopolies or oligopolies are protected by the government, otherwise they would not exist. That however does not lead to an inflation IF the money supply is held constant.
The FED, another government monopoly makes sure that it doesnÂ´t.
Anyway, protection rackets, big government in cahoots with big business is not really republican and is as despisable as big government in cahoots with big union, like teacher unions.
That such companies are plundering consumers is undoubtedly true, but I think it is obvious that the problem is government intervention and can hardly be more government intervention.