"Dabba wrote:
How naive. We’ve never rewarded the wealthy? Ever heard of tariffs, subsidies, corporate personhood, regulations, bailouts, etc? On the contrary, many things that the government does, in some sense redistributes from the bottom to the top.
"
Wrong. never said there werent individual policies that benifit big business. however, this does overcome the fact that at the same time we take a ton of money from them. when i was discussing that historically weve nevr had trickle down, i would mean net policy.
you are also wrong to equate aiding big buisness with helping the wealthy. i agree that it can. but i can also tell you a wealthy company is one that is generous and as soon as the money stops flowing, you go from family to getting stabbed in the back. you also neglected to mention that big business is going to be owned in large part by average joe pubic.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
How naive. We’ve never rewarded the wealthy? Ever heard of tariffs, subsidies, corporate personhood, regulations, bailouts, etc? On the contrary, many things that the government does, in some sense redistributes from the bottom to the top.
“Trickle down” is just a slur used by people who don’t understand the free market to indict it for never actually being allowed to function.[/quote]
Well said. Agree 100%.
Also, there was a time before America had a progressive income tax. During this time, The federal government did not take more and more of a percentage from the rich.[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wrong. never said there werent individual policies that benifit big business. however, this does overcome the fact that at the same time we take a ton of money from them. when i was discussing that historically weve nevr had trickle down, i would mean net policy.[/quote]
No, sorry it doesn’t. Getting the government to help you keep down your competition is FAR more profitable then reducing the taxes you pay. Not to mention that many taxes tend to hurt common workers and less wealthy entrepreneurs disproportionately to the very wealthy.
[quote]you are also wrong to equate aiding big buisness with helping the wealthy. i agree that it can. but i can also tell you a wealthy company is one that is generous and as soon as the money stops flowing, you go from family to getting stabbed in the back. you also neglected to mention that big business is going to be owned in large part by average joe pubic.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what this entire paragraph means. Perhaps you could clarify a bit.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
“De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.
“Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries,” Holdren and his co-authors wrote. “This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”
Anyone heard about this? The dude is talking about de-development and redistribution of wealth not only within the US but around the world. [/quote]
This nearly makes me ill, because it’s only the latest crazy appointment he’s made. It’s unreal, when you put together the list of these “czars” and appointees. They’re so out there, so freakishly radical, and yet they fly right under the radar. The man thinks he can blitz the system, and we can only catch 10% of the shit he manages to push through.
The pessimist in me thinks that’s true, and it’s happening on a near-daily basis. The other half of me sincerely hopes this nation won’t be fooled twice, and he’ll be virtually hamstrung come November elections until he’s booted out of office in 2012 as the biggest flop and embarrassment to office in the last half century.
The arrogance is staggering. Let’s not let him get away with playing God.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wrong. never said there werent individual policies that benifit big business. however, this does overcome the fact that at the same time we take a ton of money from them. when i was discussing that historically weve nevr had trickle down, i would mean net policy.[/quote]
No, sorry it doesn’t. Getting the government to help you keep down your competition is FAR more profitable then reducing the taxes you pay. Not to mention that many taxes tend to hurt common workers and less wealthy entrepreneurs disproportionately to the very wealthy.
[quote]you are also wrong to equate aiding big buisness with helping the wealthy. i agree that it can. but i can also tell you a wealthy company is one that is generous and as soon as the money stops flowing, you go from family to getting stabbed in the back. you also neglected to mention that big business is going to be owned in large part by average joe pubic.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what this entire paragraph means. Perhaps you could clarify a bit.[/quote]
Wrong again. You entirely missed the fact that “the wealthy” and “your competition” are 2 groups that overlap quite a bit. You could make as much argument that those government actions hurt wealthy people.
It means that big business and “the wealthy” are 2 different things. It means that helping (or hurting) big business affects everyone employed by that company and all its owners. MANY of whom are NOT “the wealthy”.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wrong again. You entirely missed the fact that “the wealthy” and “your competition” are 2 groups that overlap quite a bit. You could make as much argument that those government actions hurt wealthy people.[/quote]
I think you’re confused. I am saying that government tends to benefit the very wealthy at the expense of the less wealthy who are trying to compete with them.
Umm, obviously. The point is that those big businesses shouldn’t have gotten so big in the first place (and wouldn’t, had the state not gotten its grimy hands involved). Sure the extremely wealthy create many jobs, but they also kill competition which would offer other jobs and compete for workers, hence raising wages and productivity.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wrong again. You entirely missed the fact that “the wealthy” and “your competition” are 2 groups that overlap quite a bit. You could make as much argument that those government actions hurt wealthy people.[/quote]
I think you’re confused. I am saying that government tends to benefit the very wealthy at the expense of the less wealthy who are trying to compete with them.
[/quote]
Oh yeah, that’s right. The government bailout of GM benefited the extremely wealthy (GM workers/stock holders) at the expense of their “less wealthy” competition (ford, Toyota est.). Those poor “less wealthy” ford guys. You are making assertions, once again, that are untrue. You cannot divide “wealthy (persons)” into big business vs. smaller business groups.
[quote]
Umm, obviously. The point is that those big businesses shouldn’t have gotten so big in the first place (and wouldn’t, had the state not gotten its grimy hands involved). Sure the extremely wealthy create many jobs, but they also kill competition which would offer other jobs and compete for workers, hence raising wages and productivity.[/quote]
But if big business and “the wealthy” are 2 different things, this doesn’t even apply to the topic at hand. But here you go again asserting big business and the wealthy are interchangeable terms. This “big businesses shouldn’t have gotten so big in the first place (and wouldn’t, had the state not gotten its grimy hands involved)” and this “extremely wealthy create many jobs” are 2 different groups. Many extremely wealthy got so by means having nothing to to with big business and “big business” includes many people whom are not wealthy (workers, stock holders, suppliers, est.) Aiding the wealthy, and aiding big business are only mildly related topics.
For example if GM had gone under, its the little guys without jobs who get screwed. They aren’t “trickle down” economics.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh yeah, that’s right. The government bailout of GM benefited the extremely wealthy (GM workers/stock holders) at the expense of their “less wealthy” competition (ford, Toyota est.). Those poor “less wealthy” ford guys. You are making assertions, once again, that are untrue. You cannot divide “wealthy (persons)” into big business vs. smaller business groups.[/quote]
What are you talking about? Sure, they definitely benefited GM, in this case NOT at the expense of the other companies necessarily. However, that’s just one example. Are you trying to deny that tariffs don’t benefit businesses who want to keep out competition? Or that regulations don’t create massive start-up costs for smaller firms? Or that the big banks that are lent money first by the fed aren’t benefiting from that? Or that corporate subsidies don’t help big firms stay competitive?
Funny that you didn’t choose the bailouts of the banks as your example though. Kind of would have ruined your argument. You just chose some random example, and YES that bailout did benefit a big business as well.
You’re the one who’s making the distinction between wealthy and big business. All I said was that government tends to benefit the extremely wealthy as opposed to the “aspiring” wealthy. IE all of the bullshit taxes and regulations that are imposed disproportionately hurt smaller businesses as opposed to larger ones. I understand that many wealthy people are not necessarily in big business. Nonetheless, big business inevitably contains wealthy people who use the power of the state to reduce their competition. I never claimed that all wealthy people have benefited this way or that all wealthy people can be neatly put into a box.
Again, when did I ever deny that this was true? Unfortunately, of course, this would be necessary in the short term in order to let the market correct things.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Oh yeah, that’s right. The government bailout of GM benefited the extremely wealthy (GM workers/stock holders) at the expense of their “less wealthy” competition (ford, Toyota est.). Those poor “less wealthy” ford guys. You are making assertions, once again, that are untrue. You cannot divide “wealthy (persons)” into big business vs. smaller business groups.[/quote]
What are you talking about? Sure, they definitely benefited GM, in this case NOT at the expense of the other companies necessarily. However, that’s just one example. Are you trying to deny that tariffs don’t benefit businesses who want to keep out competition? Or that regulations don’t create massive start-up costs for smaller firms? Or that the big banks that are lent money first by the fed aren’t benefiting from that? Or that corporate subsidies don’t help big firms stay competitive?
Funny that you didn’t choose the bailouts of the banks as your example though. Kind of would have ruined your argument. You just chose some random example, and YES that bailout did benefit a big business as well.
[/quote]
First, keeping a competitor afloat is always at cost to others. If GM had collapsed, their market share would have been rightly divided among their competitors. Ever GM sold today is a lost sale for another manufacturer.
The bank bailouts did the same thing. It hurt the responsible banks. So, no, it doesn’t ruin my argument. The bank bailouts hurt a lot of rich people to.
Additionally, WTF is this nonsense about tariffs? Tariffs favor US business over foreign. NOT big business over small business. Why even bring them up? They have nothing to do with what’s being discussed.
None of anything you mentioned benefits specifically the rich any more than it also hurts “the rich”.
[quote]
You’re the one who’s making the distinction between wealthy and big business. All I said was that government tends to benefit the extremely wealthy as opposed to the “aspiring” wealthy. IE all of the bullshit taxes and regulations that are imposed disproportionately hurt smaller businesses as opposed to larger ones. I understand that many wealthy people are not necessarily in big business. Nonetheless, big business inevitably contains wealthy people who use the power of the state to reduce their competition. I never claimed that all wealthy people have benefited this way or that all wealthy people can be neatly put into a box.
Again, when did I ever deny that this was true? Unfortunately, of course, this would be necessary in the short term in order to let the market correct things.[/quote]
Okay, now I think you are purposely playing dumb. I’m not making the distinction. YOU claimed that certain policies rewarded “the rich” because they benefit big business. I have specifically pointed out that rewarding big business and rewarding the rich are entirely different things. You made the claim that they were the same by your assertion. I’ve logically disproved that assertion rendering your claim that good for big business equals good for the rich entirely incorrect. It simply does not. Good for big business hurts as many rich as it helps and has a much larger helping impact on the lowly factory worker or stock holder. Therefore, favoring big business is in no way a policy that favors “the rich”. And is therefore NOT trickle down economics. If anything, it is really the beginnings of corporatism which is a whole other beast and very unlike capitalist “trickle down” policy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
First, keeping a competitor afloat is always at cost to others. If GM had collapsed, their market share would have been rightly divided among their competitors. Ever GM sold today is a lost sale for another manufacturer.
The bank bailouts did the same thing. It hurt the responsible banks. So, no, it doesn’t ruin my argument. The bank bailouts hurt a lot of rich people to.
Additionally, WTF is this nonsense about tariffs? Tariffs favor US business over foreign. NOT big business over small business. Why even bring them up? They have nothing to do with what’s being discussed.
None of anything you mentioned benefits specifically the rich any more than it also hurts “the rich”.[/quote]
Wait, weren’t YOU the one who was using GM as an example of the government bailing out businesses yet not hurting their competitors? Now you seem to be using it in the opposite way…
Dude, I’m not arguing that the bank bailouts didn’t hurt rich people, you are completely missing my point. I am saying that the bank bailouts primarily helped these irresponsible rich people who would’ve lost their jobs in a free market.
Tariffs are just another example of the government artificially propping up the size and power of businesses, allowing them to abnormally increase their size and power within a given market.
You seem to be unable to grasp the idea that some rich people can benefit at the same time that other rich people are being hurt. It’s not a hard concept.
Dear lord. Big business is only one subset of the rich who benefit from certain government policies. I will say it again. Big business and the rich are not interchangeable, but the rich in big business TEND to be able to petition government for privileges that smaller firms can’t.
I’m not sure why you keep bringing up “trickle down economics” or what it has to do with what we are saying at this point. As for your other claims, they’ve already been addressed and acknowledged.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
First, keeping a competitor afloat is always at cost to others. If GM had collapsed, their market share would have been rightly divided among their competitors. Ever GM sold today is a lost sale for another manufacturer.
The bank bailouts did the same thing. It hurt the responsible banks. So, no, it doesn’t ruin my argument. The bank bailouts hurt a lot of rich people to.
Additionally, WTF is this nonsense about tariffs? Tariffs favor US business over foreign. NOT big business over small business. Why even bring them up? They have nothing to do with what’s being discussed.
None of anything you mentioned benefits specifically the rich any more than it also hurts “the rich”.[/quote]
Wait, weren’t YOU the one who was using GM as an example of the government bailing out businesses yet not hurting their competitors? Now you seem to be using it in the opposite way…
[/quote]
No, I never did any such thing. You did.
Good, you admit then that it has nothing to do with â??tickle downâ??? Cause this was all part of your example of how the US trickle down. But if these policies punish the rich as much as help them, itâ??s hardly trickle down.
Yup, I agree 100%. However, this is once again entirely unrelated to the discussion about whether or not the US is a trickle down economy. Grass is also green and the sky is blue.
No I grasp it fine. Iâ??ve said exactly that. Infact that has been my whole point. But the fact that it benefits some select few and hurts others makes it NOT trickle down. This is the hard part you canâ??t seem to grasp. Just because a policy helps a few select rich, does not make it trickle down.
Smaller firms contain a lot of equally rich people. This completely obliterates your assertion.
Um, maybe because a poster blamed the downturn on a â??trickle downâ?? economic plan and I made the claim that the US has never been trickle down. If the US has never been trickle down, you canâ??t blame the current situation on it.
Then you stepped in claiming there were lots of trickle down policies. Yet, none of them are. That is what this whole argument has been about. Maybe you sure re-read the thread. We are not and have never been a trickle down economy. Bailouts, tariffs, est. are in no way trickle down.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Um, maybe because a poster blamed the downturn on a â??trickle downâ?? economic plan and I made the claim that the US has never been trickle down. If the US has never been trickle down, you canâ??t blame the current situation on it.
Then you stepped in claiming there were lots of trickle down policies. Yet, none of them are. That is what this whole argument has been about. Maybe you sure re-read the thread. We are not and have never been a trickle down economy. Bailouts, tariffs, est. are in no way trickle down.
[/quote]
You’ve completely misunderstood me. None of this had to do with trickle down policies. I see your confusion now. I was speaking of trickle down in a separate context. I was responding to your separate accusation that “we have never helped the wealthy”, which in my mind, was separate from trickle down economics.
I never stepped in talking about trickle down policies. All I said about it was that it was a slur used to misrepresent the free market. Like I said, I was responding to your different, but related, statement about the wealthy, which is why I now realize you didn’t understand what I was getting at.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Um, maybe because a poster blamed the downturn on a �¢??trickle down�¢?? economic plan and I made the claim that the US has never been trickle down. If the US has never been trickle down, you can�¢??t blame the current situation on it.
Then you stepped in claiming there were lots of trickle down policies. Yet, none of them are. That is what this whole argument has been about. Maybe you sure re-read the thread. We are not and have never been a trickle down economy. Bailouts, tariffs, est. are in no way trickle down.
[/quote]
You’ve completely misunderstood me. None of this had to do with trickle down policies. I see your confusion now. I was speaking of trickle down in a separate context. I was responding to your separate accusation that “we have never helped the wealthy”, which in my mind, was separate from trickle down economics.
I never stepped in talking about trickle down policies. All I said about it was that it was a slur used to misrepresent the free market. Like I said, I was responding to your different, but related, statement about the wealthy, which is why I now realize you didn’t understand what I was getting at.[/quote]
Okay. I get the misunderstanding. A better way of stating would be to have said “we have never [had general policy that rewarded] the wealthy [as a general group]”.
I really meant “the wealthy” as a term reflecting the group as a whole, not individuals. Trickle down economics would entail rewarding the group as a whole and that’s what I was meaning to address.
Hell, congress gives itself pay raises all the time, that’s the government rewarding the wealthy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay. I get the misunderstanding. A better way of stating would be to have said “we have never [had general policy that rewarded] the wealthy [as a general group]”.
I really meant “the wealthy” as a term reflecting the group as a whole, not individuals. Trickle down economics would entail rewarding the group as a whole and that’s what I was meaning to address.
Hell, congress gives itself pay raises all the time, that’s the government rewarding the wealthy.[/quote]
Well, yeah I would agree that we’ve never had an official policy of “Help the wealthy!”. That would be political suicide. My only point is that, indeed, the government has enormously benefited (at least comparatively) some wealthy people at the expense of other businessmen (in the general sense) and/or just the general public.
