Got a source for that ? The idea of illegitimate money sounds like nonsense to me
Split Thread Trickle-down economics
- Thread starter McHrozni
- Start date
Got a source for that ? The idea of illegitimate money sounds like nonsense to me
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
The idea of money as a "title" doesn't sound much better.
Typically, when ownership of a good/service is transferred, the title is also transferred (it follows the good/service).
When something is sold for money, the opposite happens. The good/service goes one way and the money goes the opposite way. In effect, money acts as an 'anti-title'. It is evidence that you don't own the good/service any more.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
That was a quote from a book called Modern Money and Unemployment by Isidore Ostrer published in 1964. He was a chairman of Gaumont British film company before the war, and Illingworth Morris carpets, and some financial investment company in London.
There is a bit on You Tube about all this theoretical economics business on You Tube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzPJSuAQnbE
You do realise that a bunch of books have been written in the lat 50 years don't you ?
That's not to say that they invalidate things written before but, as with most things, there have been a large number of refinements over the that period.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
None of it trickled down to me, even though Jeremy Paxman's friends never had any difficulty finding a job, and they were able to benefit from house price inflation.
Most people posting in this thread are of the opinion that trickle down doesn't work.
I have no idea about whether or not any of Jeremy Paxman's friends have had problems finding jobs or whether they have personally benefited from house price inflation.
Why are you so bothered about Jeremy Paxman's friends and their financial situation ?
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Trickle down's working fine - if you're Warren Buffet.
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway made $29 billion off the Republican tax cuts
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
I’m confused.
The corporate tax cuts were not in effect last year.
Right?
The corporate tax cuts were not in effect last year.
Right?
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
There is a widespread ignorance of the principles of international finance which prevails. It's beyond the comprehension of economists, and politicians, and Max Keiser, and central bankers. Governments are tempted to issue further paper which can cause inflation.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Keep an ear out, you'll hear the framing repeated especially on Fox and other business news sources: Wage increases are bad because they will trigger inflation. Got that? The rich are getting richer and the rich/poor wealth gap is increasing, but you getting a raise is a bad thing. It's evil, inflation is evil, raising wages is evil. 
How do you think that meme got started? Think it came purposefully from certain people (Heritage Group, ALEC— that kind of people) or do you think it naturally evolved and was adopted?
How do you think that meme got started? Think it came purposefully from certain people (Heritage Group, ALEC— that kind of people) or do you think it naturally evolved and was adopted?
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Saw a headline today. It seems that this month's budget deficit was the highest since 2012, now that the tax cuts are kicking in. Go figure. Who could have seen it coming?
Oh, but don't you worry. They'll kick the economy into high gear Real Soon Now, and the federal coffers will be overflowing. Right....I mean.....that always happens, doesn't it?
Oh, but don't you worry. They'll kick the economy into high gear Real Soon Now, and the federal coffers will be overflowing. Right....I mean.....that always happens, doesn't it?
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
All this trickle down economics came from Milton Friedman, and the Chicago school of economics, and Thatcher and Reagan. I don't think it's academically satisfactory or works in practice.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
I think it’s best to concede it does “work”, but that it’s probably/possibly not the best way to stimulate the economy.
Money pumped in at the top does trickle down. People at or near the top who have more discretionary funds will tend to spend or invest those funds. Even a new yacht, or a second or third plane, or a fourth home will provide jobs and income and business opportunities downstream.
Argue why it’s not the best way to go - not that it doesn’t work at all.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
Every day on the TV in the UK there is some kind of spokesperson complaining of serious underfunding in the police and armed forces and councils and prisons and the Health Service and schools and so on. Meanwhile others are living in luxury, and not paying taxes, and screwing small and medium enterprises. It needs to be equitably administered, not trickle down economics. The roads are now full of potholes.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
These hedge fund manager commercial marauders are now attempting to asset strip GKN in the UK with their empty promises. They did the same thing with Cadburys, promising not to close factories. In the end they moved the manufacture to Poland. It's foolish in its economics. Nobody seems to have the brains to seize the situation like a man. The world is run by lunatics.
Here's a BBC piece on the GKN story for those of you, like me, who aren't fully conversant with the facts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43569399
As for the rest of Henri McPhee's post........
Hedge fund managers didn't asset strip Cadburys. Even if you think that Cadburys was asset-stripped (something that I think you need to provide evidence for), then it was done through acquisition by a publicly listed company.
Regarding the movement of Cadbury manufacture to Poland, I think you need to provide evidence why this was economically foolish. Costs in Poland are lower and AFAIK there was no specific downside in the move for Kraft Foods (now Mondelēz International). For sure UK-based employees were disadvantaged but there was no obligation on the part of Kraft Foods to be concerned for their welfare. Seems like a sensible economic decision to me.
How any of this relates to trickle-down economics is anyone's guess...
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The point is that it's not sound economics for it to trickle down to commercial marauders. GKN was an important company. It could be unfair on Britishers affected. A few years ago the tank production factory suddenly closed down at York. It was never discussed in the House of Commons, or corporate media, except with a 'who cares' attitude. The problem is that this is going to lead to a 'with what' approach to defence capability. It's like having no fire assurance, or insurance, because there have been no serious fires recently.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
Stock markets incorporate information about future earnings as soon as it’s available. Berkshire Hathaway’s future earnings went up as soon as the tax cuts were passed, and the company’s value is tied to expectations of its future earnings. If you double the future earnings right now you double the value of the company right now, regardless of whether it makes more money this your or not.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
No. “Trickle down” is essentially fiscal stimulus applied to the supply (investment) side of the equation. Per Freidman argued that any type of fiscal stimulus is pointless, wasteful and undesirable because monetary policy is far more important than fiscal policy. He was against any type of fiscal stimulus, trickle down included.
While he would certainly have supported cutting both programs and the taxes that paid for them in the belief that the private sector would then provide that same service more efficiently (possible in some cases unlikely in others) he certainly would not have supported targeting specific groups for fiscal stimulus ala trickle down.