Just one of those things.

It's the truth.

It's factual but that won't make some people believe it. As far as they are concerned, it can't possibly be true if a liberal said it. The only way you could convince the doubters is to get Fox and the various wing nut pundits to say it's so.

Good propaganda but lousy economics.

If wealth is becoming more concentrated, how is that good for the economy?

Larry, Ken wouldn't know an economics principle if he stumbled over one.

Our ancestors were more honest. They called it the "Sparrow and the Horse" theory -- if you feed the horse enough grain, the sparrows will eat also. They pick it out of the horse s**t.

Inequality of wealth and incomes is an essential feature of the market economy. Without it innovation, productivity improvements, initiative, and efficiencies all evaporate. If there is no voltage drop across an electrical circuit then nothing happens. Likewise of there is no income disparity across an economic population then no improvement happens.

Second to make your case you must demonstrate that the rich guy got that way by taking advantage of the poorer guy and that his initiative , drive, etc. was not what it was that allowed him to succeed. This demonstration you have not made (nor was it made in the dopey video - just assumed). Obama didn't make the case either with his asinine 'you didn't build this' comments.

It is true that statist government policies, and an immensely complex and onerous tax code, among other business-unfriendly statutes make it more difficult to start small businesses, to hire less skilled workers effectively, and in general serve to handicap the poorer worker. These are the fault of poor government policies, not the well-to-do.

Lebrea,
Look with caution at the experts. Keynes gave the government the facade of a economic theory upon which to base what they wanted to do anyway which was to increase government spending. Note that there are no Keynesians when it is time (during good economic times) to CUT government spending. The whole thing is a scam for the progressives to grow government, have it do all things and therefore to replace any need for a deity. Read Mises, Milton Friedman, and Henry Hazlitt and identify what is wrong with what they say. The opposition is not logical but ideological. Start here:
The Broken Window Fallacy - YouTube
or here:http://mises.org/efandi/ch9.asp

Keep in mind, Ken, that the Austrian School consider themselves experts. Don't trust experts. They might have a political ax to grind.

Ajatasutra,
True enough but as with any expert, does what they propose align with wider experience and reason. I submit that only the Austrian school does. It has been disrespected because it doesn't support the big government goals and methods of modern progressives. An economic theory is just like any other. It might work in theory and fail in practice. But if it fails in theory (as does the Keynesian model) it will surely fail in practice. This we have seen (and enjoy a $15 Trillion debt as a result of our slow learning).

Thanks Karl Leuba, for Wonderful Excellent Find, This is very useful and I am publishing this cartoon in my sites.

VIDEO The Center for American Progress : Cartoon "Once Upon a Trickle Down: The Rise and Fall of Supply Side Economics" - Trickle Down Deceivers still selling their Deceit, Deception, Falseness, Fraud, Chicanery, Trickery and cheating intended to gain an advantage by deceiving the Middle Class and the Poor
.
The Biggest Dupery against American Middle Classs -

Trickle Down Economics is the Rich pissing on the Poor !

Published on Jul 31, 2012 by seeprogress

Move over "Trickle Down," there's a new game in town. It's an economy that begins with the middle class.

Produced by the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/) and Mark Fiore (http://www.markfiore.com).



Once Upon a Trickle Down: The Rise and Fall of Supply Side Economics

VIDEO of this beautiful Cartoon :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSOgxZ8lRUw


***************

Actually, Lebrea, Ken seems to know nothing of economics or history. Up until 1933, the governments response to the Panics (recessions or depressions) was to cut back on spending. The same austerity that was used recently in Europe was what was used, and it never worked. It just stretched the Panic out longer. This was ably proven in the 1930's in the U.S. FDR began to use stimulus spending in 1933, and that began to alleviate the Depression. Then in 1936, because of the hue and cry from the conservatives over the deficit, FDR started moving toward a balanced budget. The economy fell back into a depression in 1937, and FDR again listened to his advisers and began using stimulus again.
I always get a laugh at the people who say, but FDR didn't get the U.S. out of the Depression, it was WWII that ended the depression. They are the people who are so uninformed and without any knowledge of what they are even talking about. How did the war end the depression? it brought about even greater stimulus spending, along with drafting of employable aged men, and the economy began to hire and unemployment disappeared.

Vicente, All those are garbage propaganda, made to influence the gullible.
George,
Sorry but you've been fed the kool-aid again. Hear this: In 1939, ten years after the crash on Wall Street, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., told the House Ways and Means Committee:
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”
Not a good testimony to his view of hallowed Keynesian thinking as aplied in the 1930's. Read that part again about government spending where he says
"IT DOES NOT WORK".

Lebrea, The Chicago Booth school of business is horribly left leaning (as are many) so I wouldn't expect much balance from them. I am not sure which survey you refer to but if it is the one considering the impact of the Obama stimulus program it was at best mixed.

George,
The reason Morgenthau's words matter is because it is BEFORE the inevitable revisionist history applied by your progressive brethren in order support the unsupportable.

That was then. Presidents used to respect their oaths as well. That too was then.

Ken, I love your electrical circuit metaphor. The dynamo we call an economy works best when the people at the top are hungry. Well these days they are not, and it does not look like they are going to be anytime soon. Take some of that extreme wealth -- in the form of marginal taxes -- and all of a sudden the job creators get their appetite for work back.
Even if the government did nothing with the added revenue beyond paying what is owed to Social Security.

I hope that you know an electric motor, with too little voltage to turn will burn out and with too little load will over speed and burn out as well. What the US economy lacks is sufficient investment to grow. We have lots of vital needs, say computer keyboards that we invest in China to get. There is no reason that those same keyboards could not be made on the Indian Reservations in Montana or the Dakotas, or Minnesota or Arizona, using native labor and filling the need. Except one, the CEO of the company making them is able to avoid US taxes by shipping the keyboards from China to the rest of the world.

Ken, you may well be an economist of the first order, but if your brand of economics is good for the US economy I can't see how.

Would you mind explaining how an inner city adult can make Keyboards if the factory is in Tienjen China?

Karl,
It is curious that the Left is continually (and falsely) claiming that conservatives (and Romney) want to take the country back to the 1950's yet their own wacky progressive economic views (like the ones you describe here) are squarely from that era. First they want tax rates from the 1950's while ignoring that in that time the only economic playground was in the US. There was not yet a Japan or China, and Europe was still in the rebuilding stages. IF you wanted to do commerce then, the only real engine for such was in the US. Now that landscape is clearly different. You can't simply use confiscatory tax policies when companies and individuals are free to manufacture where ever they want. We must make it more (not less) desirable to build businesses here. We have to compete for business and that means the government needs to compete with it's own policies as well. That means stable predictable understandable laws, smart regulations that take advantage of our intelligent workforce, and lower tax rates for business investments.

It would also help if the president was not running around demeaning those that are successful, misrepresenting how they got that way, and encouraging that inner city adult that he doesn't have to be productive because somehow he is "owed" a good life just because he breathes air. Instead Obama does nothing to promote an attitude of support for market economics despite it's proven ability to be the only economic system that is capable of lifting people out of poverty. Watch Milton Friedman talk about Greed (another Democratic talking point which they misrepresent) and school Donahue on the topic.

Ken, I don't think you have the right 50's. Drop back a hundred years and you'll be closer.
The 1950's were not that bad. Most families were able to survive, prosper even, on the income of one worker. About 30% (I think) of all blue collar workers were members of unions, wages, health benefits and retirement was pretty well covered in the Labor Contracts, Democrats had been in power for more than 30 years, and the country was 15 plus years out of a huge depression, caused in the main, by corporate power and bank failures.

But you already know all that.

Ken, Capital gains is not success, it is good luck, and in some cases skulduggery.

I really fear for you. Unless you are in the 1%, you like me, have been taking it in the wallet and the face for our whole working lives. The only reason either of us is where we are is because we have been willing to forgo luxury. But perhaps you have been better blessed than I.

Money in the hands of the poor trickles up through the middle class. Money in the hands of the middle class doesn't trickle down to the poor. Money only trickles up to power and away from weakness.

Reality shows you wrong Larry.

Dan,

That is such a remarkable statement I am astonished at you.

You must tell me where you were educated, if you can remember.

LMAO!

Larry!
Trying your hand at Clever! LOL!

Doesn't change a thing Larry! The reality of how our system works proves you wrong.

So you did forget, hey Dan?

Hey Larry!

Good for you, Karl, I tried to find a way to share this on Gather, but I couldn't make it work. I did share it on FB.

George, to share an article on Gather you need to copy the URL, open your share post tab, put a title in the editor, paste the URL to the body, Highlight the URL, paste it to the Insert window that pops up, click insert, tag the post, select the groups --- aw hell.
Thanks for sharing it on FaceBook. I am not sure sharing on Gather is worth the bother.

Thanks, Karl, I tried that with that post and it just built a link that went nowhere.

Our ancestors were more honest. They called it the "Sparrow and the Horse" theory -- if you feed the horse enough grain, the sparrows will eat also. They pick it out of the horse s**t.

Great Find and Great Quote George, Thanks.

I love Economic History and Past Presidents and their Actions, Tasks, Purposes and Deeds. "There is nothing new under the sun".

And maybe I will.

I just dropped by to say that for the record, I'm still waiting on even one conservative to explain what their policies have done for Mississippi (or West Virginia or Alabama or [insert a strongly republican red state with strong republican economic policies here]). Please explain key economics metrics like the percent of people below poverty and business innovation as indexed by VC capital infusions per capita and in total.

Please do this elementary task if you are not actually a retarded person.

(Back to regular programming.)

We haven't utilized conservative economic policies at the federal level in the last 70-100 years and since federal economic policies generally swamp those of the states there is not a pristine example for you although Texas,Florida and North Dakota are doing pretty well.

Texas and Florida :

Rick Perry of Texas, and Jeb Bush, former Florida Governor are better people and more decent human beings than Hypocrite Mitt Romney and the Extremist Tea Party that have taken over the Republican Party.

Mitt Romney has been cowered and is a coward before the Tea Party and Republican Crazies. What a Wimp and Weenie !!

After the defeat of Next November the GOP will be forced to be less crazy and less stupid.

Rick Perry and Jeb Bush are one thousand times better, more decent and honest than Mitt Romney.

That is why the GOP won't face extinction. This is another episode of Racism, Bigotry and Extremism like Barry Goldwater in 1964.

......

Vicente,
Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, not exactly a Tea Party stronghold. You can't see how ludicrous your rant is. You like Perry and Bush ONLY because they don't have the nomination. How shallow. The other issue you ignore is that it is not about people or personalities, it is about principles and policies with principles first. On that score the Tea Party approach is the ONLY one that will return the country to fiscal sanity and save the American experiment in self-government. But you totally forget all that economic stuff (even though that's what this post is supposed to be about) and attack Romney personally. That is childish and unproductive. Such is why you will lose.

"This is another episode of Racism, Bigotry and Extremism like Barry Goldwater in 1964."

Trickle down is about race. As were "states' rights". It's about some rich whites ensuring that not a silver nickle of their supposed hard earned money makes its way to those undeserving lazy blacks and browns. And its about the poor whites who stupidly think somehow they benefit by subsidizing the scheme with their own poverty.

"Taxes" are so about race they should be a demographic.

(Note to self: I think they are retarded so you should post it again. )

I said:

I just dropped by to say that for the record, I'm still waiting on even one conservative to explain what their policies have done for Mississippi (or West Virginia or Alabama or [insert a strongly republican red state with strong republican economic policies here]). Please explain key economics metrics like the percent of people below poverty and business innovation as indexed by VC capital infusions per capita and in total.

Please do this elementary task if you are not actually a retarded person.

The Best States, with the Best Universities, Learning and Research Centers , are more prosperous and do not need Voter Suppression and State Laws to cheat and win Elections.

And Yes ! ... they are more Liberal and Democratic, and they are for True Liberties and Freedom and not for Fake and Phony Patriotism.

******

You're absolutely right and it's not even borderline. No close call. It's decidedly favorable for liberal states.

But if that's not enough, one would think that stupid republicans would loooooooove to brag about all the VC money their states attract over and above the high taxing over regulated jobs-killing blue liberal states with all the red states' supposed business friendly low taxes and low regulations.

Au contraire. Au. Freaking. Contraire.

Escape From New York? High-Taxing Empire State Loses 3.4 Million Residents in 10 Years
By Elizabeth Harrington
May 29, 2012
"Over that decade the state gained 2.1 million, so net migration amounted to 1.3 million, representing a loss of $45.6 billion in income."

Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus
A leading U.S. demographer and 'Truman Democrat' talks about what is driving the middle class out of the Golden State.

"Nearly four million more people have left the Golden State in the last two decades than have come from other states."

They are more liberal and have the highest taxes so people are moving to the more conservative states where they can afford to live!

California is nearly bankrupt because of all of the liberalness and their taxes.
How long are they going to remain prosperous?

Your braggadocio is easily quelled.

Drop Dead Idiots, please report back to us on
(1) the PERSONAL INCOME TREND of the residents of the LIBERAL STATES CITED vs. the RED STATES;
(2) then, Drop Dead Idiots, the VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT TRENDS IN BLUE VS. RED STATES--for ANY PERIOD IN HISTORY YOU CARE TO CHOOSE, CONSECUTIVE OR NOT;
(3) then, Drop Dead Idiots, the economic principle of SUPPLY AND DEMAND and the MARKET CLEARING PRICE of real estate (commercial and residential) and rents---please explain why everyone in northern California is a millionaire and whether you would like to PENALIZE California for its SUCCESS by COMPLAINING about the POORER PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO STAY THERE BECAUSE THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY HAS RAISED THE COST OF LIVING ABOVE ALL THEIR RESERVATION PRICES;
(4) then, Drop Dead Idiots, the ROI on the state legislatures 'economic policies: Who for example has built so many PRISONS they can't afford to pay teachers and have to now model LIBERAL CORRECTIONAL CONTROL legislation just to free up money (you know, TEXAS, for one---or how about GEORGIA whose correctional control rate EXCEEDS CALIFORNIA and NEW YORK's, Drop Dead Idiots.)

PLEASE SIMPLY REPORT BACK THE US RANKINGS IN % OF POPULATION LIVING BELOW POVERTY IN RED STATES VS. BLUE, Drop Dead Idiots. Simply BRING UP THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET FROM THE US CENSUS, and SORT on ONE COLUMN, Drop Dead Idiots: Poverty, DESCENDING.

There. Have I spoonfed and wiped your behind well enough? I've given you all the homework answers. Can you pass the test now?

"How long are they going to remain prosperous?"

I LOVE IT! I FREAKING LOVE IT! The Drop Dead Idiots are always invoking some BIG SCARY IMPENDING DOOM of the liberal states!

And the DOOM is never actually here yet, it's just on its way, by golly! Oh my! By this standard poor California NEVER SHOULD HAVE DEVELOPED A SILICON VALLEY!!! Steve Jobs should have relocated to Alabama in 1970!! CA should be getting LESS AFFLUENT OVER TIME not more affluent! New York should be getting LESS VC money over time not MORE! I LOVE IT!! YOU'RE AN IDIOT. Rich Mexicans and Cubans DON'T LEAVE Mexico and Cuba to find fortune here! Carlos Slim doesn't need to move here Drop Dead Idiots!! What's the matter---I thought you conservatives LIKED Darwinian SURVIVAL of the RICHEST!!

The most words do NOT win Teri,
Your progressive over taxed states are loosing population...losing tax revenues, they will not be able for long pay for their progressive agenda.
All of your flailing about can't change that, the progressive agenda is unsustainable!
Show me one of your progressive states that is running in the black.

Drop Dead Idiot, that is your problem. You have a fixation on TAXES. You. Don't. Even. Know. What. A tax. Is. You are a typical republican. I have had it with you low lifes.

TAXES 101---I'll type slow so I won't lose you:
(1) A TAX is not merely what a legislature CALLS a tax. It's WHATEVER suppresses competitive economic expansion and the improved general welfare attached thereto. [I'll paint pictures for the drooling republican morons in a second...]

(2) And not EVERYTHING that's CALLED a tax, ACTUALLY SUPPRESSES competitive economic expansion.

YOU ARE STUPID IF YOU ARE HYPNOTIZED BY AND FOLLOW THE TAX WORD.

Pictures, i.e., REAL LIFE EXAMPLES:

That backward state of Georgia was in the news for a recent 1% tax vote for transportation projects. Its REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR and DEMOCRATIC ATLANTA MAYOR both supported the tax. Backward red state citizens voted it down saying they don't want to raise their taxes.

Well, those idiots by voting NO, DID raise their taxes:
(1) Georgia lost 416 jobs to Charlotte, NC when Chiquita Bananas relocated its Cinncinnati HQs to NC because dumb Georgia's TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM is inadequate. That's 416 jobs with an AVERAGE salary of $105,000.
(2) Georgia lost 500 jobs to Tampa, FL when Time Warner Inc. (which already has a business unit in Georgia) sent 500 jobs to Florida instead with average middle class salaries of $50,000, because dumb Georgia's TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM is inadequate..

The REAL "TAX" is NOT the 1% sales tax that all dumb red drooling moron Georgians would have paid. It's the REDUCED INDUSTRY ATTRACTED TO GEORGIA FOR THE NEXT 75 YEARS and the REDUCED TAX BASE ATTENDANT THEREWITH. It's also PRECEDENT: Because other companies take those examples as evidence for their own cases for NOT doing business in dumb Georgia.
Anyway, consequently, the folks who voted NO to the 1% TAX (many of them dumb and poor---but that's given as it's Georgia) will actually see their "taxes" go up through higher transportation costs that now will be born directly by those who use the public transit---the poor--vs, Georgia at large.

I mean, even the dumb red governors get it: They keep losing jobs to purple finalist states. They talk that "low taxes" mess to get elected; then when courting big companies for jobs they SEE THE LIGHT that eliminating taxes is actually a bigger TAX itself.

Name a red state and there's an example IDENTICAL to this.

Oh--and that Chiquita thing was a big@ss deal because Chiquita's orchards are in Latin America and they wanted direct flights to it and Georgia's airport (world's largest with new international terminal that's the size of some towns) was a HUGE advantage. Basically, if Georgia couldn't get Chiquita, they're freaking f_cked. F getting anybody. Which is why the republican governor starting urinating on himself and acting like a liberal on taxes.

Teri,
Please take a breath and study some actual economics besides that bonehead Krugman. Let me make it simple for you. It is not about individual state economic standing because the ever larger behemoth federal government (and it's dopey policies) swamps state efforts at controlling their economic future. The federal juggernaut must be controlled or the jig is up. It's really that simple. Also it is unaffected by how many childish insults and foul language you throw.

Well stated, Ken...

Thanks Vic, I do what I can.
Sometimes it seems like yelling into the Grand Canyon.

Crickets. No evidence that republican policies grow wealth and net more business investment and growth in staunchly republican states and lift more people out of poverty relative to democratic states, and yet you come to these discussions and make the same trickle down argument over and over.

You are simply a low intelligent individual. Utterly stupid.

An interesting clip

Thanks for sharing and submitting to
The Surreal Circus.

Drop Dead Idiots, the federal economic polices apply to ALL states, meaning that they ALL should suffer and benefit the same, Drop Dead Idiots. Therefore, Drop Dead Idiots, pointing out a circumstance that equally applies to ALL STATES and with which ALL STATE LEGISLATURES MUST DEAL is utterly stupid, Drop Dead Idiots.

Point 2: WHATEVER the FEDERAL POLICIES are, Drop Dead Idiots, the POINT is that the REPUBLICAN STATES should STILL be EASILY ABLE, Drop Dead Idiots, to SHOW EXACTLY MATHEMATICALLY how they OUTPERFORM DEMOCRATIC STATES.

OUTPERFORM means the WELFARE METRICS tracking how people live, Drop Dead Idiots, of ONE RED state VS. ANOTHER BLUE STATE, Drop Dead Idiots, that include PERCENT BELOW POVERTY, VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT, BUSINESS ENTERPRISE ACTIVITY, PATENTS and PERSONAL NET WORTHS.

Finally, Drop Dead Idiots, pointing to a state that is 9th poorest of 49 and declaring it is doing well is utterly stupid, Drop Dead Idiots.

UN.

Freaking.

Believable.

I have no patience with stupid people. Absolutely none. I will not apologize for not being similarly stupid or being able to count. If you are potty trained and enter online conversations with the general public and make a claim, defend it with intelligence like a moderately coherent grown-up or go away and get yourself educated.

D@mn.

Trickle down economics is not a policy, nor was it something that was implemented by the government. It is the natural economic process whereas the economy (in its entirety) creates stability, but only with those who participate in the economic process. Those who are simple waiting at the bottom for handouts are not an example of components of the actual process. Poverty should be addressed, but the natural economic process will not solve the problems. It is pathetic that our government has put us into debt to the tune of $15,000,000,000,000 and has not addressed the poverty situation in America. The truth is that they have done exactly what they wished to do. They provide those within the poverty level only enough to survive, but keep them locked within that poverty level. If they should attempt to crawl out of that hole on their own, such as to find a job, they risk losing any benefits that the government is providing with our tax dollars. Because of fear, many choose to remain as they are, locked into that poverty level, rather than to make a move on their own and risk losing that assistance. The government is intentionally growing the poverty level, and has done so every year for the last twenty years. They are dependent upon the government and will vote for those who promise to continue to give them what they need. That is the sad part of our society, but this sector of society is not going to benefit from the "trickle down economics" and anyone who believes that to be the result of the natural economic process is merely making noise, and some are obviously making more noise than others.

Hear, hear Vic,
Well said!

Thanks, Dan...

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, that will herald the end of the republic." --Benjamin Franklin

The American experiment in self-government can only succeed if these two dangerous tendencies are acknowledged to exist and consistently held in check.

Vic, Trickle Down, or Voodoo, are two names for the Reagan Economic and regulatory policy. Let's be honest with the language at least. Ronald Reagan actually coined (or had coined for him) the expression "Trickle Down Economics." It was the phrase he used to justify removing profit hindering regulations from environmental, economic, communication, and transportation sectors, and it worked. While Reagan was called the "Great Communicator," he should have been branded the Radical Right Propagandist.
While you make the assertion that liberal policy has been in command for 70 to 100 years, you also err. Liberal Policy began to hold sway in about 1936, and ended in 1978. That is a total of 42 years, and they were prosperous years for the USA, and for a recovering war torn Europe. It was the time the Big Empires folded and left dozens of nations independent, and self governing.
Your history, and your use of the language to describe it are both erroneous. I know it, and I am not that well educated. I expect others know it as well, though some of the comments in this thread don't bear out my optimism.

Ken, you have the right quote, but your commentary indicates you have no comprehension of what it means. The people being bribed with the Public's money are the very same 1% in control of the largest share of the nation's wealth.
I suggest you study a little of the history of Europe after the discovery of the Western Hemisphere. Spain, and eventually Great Britain created huge empires, plundered the wealth of those empires and threw the entire world out of balance so badly that it has not yet recovered.
There is a real sweep of history, and it encompasses many generations.
The single most destructive Republican Policy Position is the Doctrine of Dominance. And that Started with Eisenhower's refusal to start the process of putting Europe on an independent course.
When the purpose of a society is subverted from the greatest good for the greatest number to a culture of great wealth and power, the society dies. And that Sir is the meaning of your two quotes.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, that will herald the end of the republic." --Benjamin Franklin In both cases the speakers were talking about using the power to tax to enrich the rich. If you don't believe this, just check the context -- historical -- and rhetorical -- of the speakers quoted.

Why do conservatives run from their ultra conservative examples in Mississippi, West Virginia and Alabama as examples? Do they not like all that third world infant mortality and trailer trash and meth-riddled Appalachia and black-lunged West Virginia and cultural wasteland, etc.?

Show of hands: Are there any republicans proud of these states' enterprise and wealth generation for their populations? Anybody? Hello?

People are having trouble comprehending your intended meaning because your anger-based delivery is clouding your message.

Put the malt liquor down or whatever the heck they drink in the West Virginia trailer parks and read clearly. I've had it with republican idiocy. There are people I disagree with. But stupidity and logic deficits are another thing entirely.

And I'll take that as a NO; no one extolling the economic virtues of Trickle Down and what it has specifically done for ultra republican Mississippi.

And to be clear, I'm not making fun of poor people. But I'm making a whole bunch of fun of dumb poor people who vote republican and vote trickle down and are still holding that pot of "stew" in the cartoon that's just a clean bone thinking they got something---AND can't say what it is.

When you decide to set aside your anger and your nasty presentation, I will consider responding. It is very difficult to take you seriously with your presentation of hatred, especially before anyone has had a chance to even present thoughts on the issue.

And just for the record, you should not be calling anyone dumb as you suggest that either of the political parties are worthy of unconditional loyalty. That biased approach nullifies your credibility with your overall judgment. Neither party is worthy of praise, period. Both got us into this mess, and it is foolish to believe, even for a second, that the nation can only survive if one of the two primary political party is viewed as being superior to the other.

teri,
Blather as you may....It doesn't make you right!

Let the record show no one has stepped forward to extol the economic virtues of the DEEPLY RED states of Mississippi, West Virginia or Alabama or to explain precisely what trickle down has done for them.

You are typical low intelligent dim witted whites who get by in America because you don't actually have to be even moderately coherent.

Let the record show that the highly lauded progressive states are falling into bankruptcy soon to implode!

"And just for the record, you should not be calling anyone dumb as you suggest that either of the political parties are worthy of unconditional loyalty."
I don't have unconditional loyalty to anything except opera singers and my grandmother.

Dan, and we can let the record speak for itself in the "Conservative" states. More poverty, more illiteracy, more welfare, more illegitimacy, more incarceration. Those conservatives really know how to keep people in their place.

Read this in its entirety or you will not understand the true meaning of what I am saying.

First of all, I will certainly not deny that there are those at the top who manipulate the system and take advantage of whatever tools allow them to continue that manipulation.

The problem is that the meaning of "trickle down economics" has been manipulated over the years to make a political statement and is simply misrepresenting the truth.

With the video, I find it disturbing to show the ones holding up a bowl waiting for benefits from those at the top. Trickle down economics is not a government social program and it is not based on helping those individuals below who are merely waiting for the benefits to trickle down to them.

Please read the following carefully...

The trickle down economics is an economic process, not a program that will work on its own. It is not meant to provide for those who are merely waiting for the fruits of the labor of others to trickle down to them. Here is what trickle down economics actually is:

For an economy to be stable, small businesses and even large corporation must themselves, be stable. They are the ones who provide the jobs in America, and whether you like the businesses or corporations, or not, if they fail, jobs will vanish with them. With that thought, it is imperative that we not hinder the economic process that allows the private sector of America to thrive and grow to its full potential. When a new business opens, there is potential for new employment. The representative of "trickle down" is the fact that with a business opening, the owner and the ones who run the business are at the top, and the trickle down part is that people are now allowed to find a job because of those at the top who started the business.

Ok, now we have new businesses...Because of that, people below have new jobs...

Those who have new jobs are able to pay their house payments, buy automobiles, buy groceries, buy clothing, etc. This helps to keep the other businesses stable because of the increased spending, and because of that those who have jobs with those businesses are able to continue to be employed, and with growth, the businesses may hire additional employees as needed. Because of the demand because of the new spending, some businesses may expand and start new locations for their business, and with those new locations, there will be the need to hire more employees, who will in turn, add to the spending and the process will continue based on these components of the economy.

The video presented a misconception and is making a political statement that speaks against the very components of the economic process. It seems to suggest that those who are simply waiting at the bottom, holding bowls, as if begging are not being cared for. That is not true. Those who are shown holding bowls, who are simply waiting, as opposed to being a part of the economic process are not a part of this theory of "trickle down economics." It is not a social program, but an economic process, and those who are not contributing to the economy are not benefiting from the economic process because of that lack of participation.

Those who need help because of mental conditions, those who are disabled, those who were a part of our military, and those who need temporary assistance due to unemployment should get all of the help they may need. But that is not, nor ever has been the solution of the true meaning of "trickle down economics." This economic process applies to a working economy, not the stable element that is not contributing to the process.

The meaning of the "trickle down economics" has been changed drastically from its original meaning, and it is nothing more than a political tool to discourage helping the true components of the economic process. Again, "trickle down economics" is not designed to help anyone unless they choose to be a part of the process. It is not a program that has been designed to help those who are merely waiting to see the results trickle to them. That is the government's way of demonizing the businesses in order to tax the businesses more, which takes away from the stability that is the force of the whole process. When you weaken the components of the economy, all below will suffer, as well.

There is not a single word in this comment that should be viewed as being disrespectful to anyone.

Sales points for sure Vic, but when the big companies, and the wealthy get the opportunity to buy out, or crush competing small businesses the trickle in trickle down becomes lifeblood.

The reason trickle down does not work is because it is designed and intended to concentrate wealth at the top, leaving the top with the option of restricting the free flow of capital at the bottom. It is LITERALLY like a dam on a river that only allows a little water to flow to the farmers downstream.
It only works for the farmer who built the dam.

Hi, Karl...I am presenting the fact that the "trickle down" is a natural economic process, not a government manufactured policy. The "trickle down economics" that I described is the natural process, and that part does work to a certain extent with the overall economy, and includes everyone. The problem we have is with the addition of manipulation and corruption, which will hinder that natural process, and at that point, it moves more in favor of your mentioned direction. Whether we speak of large corporations, the banking industry, Wall Street, or even the small businesses of America, the system is fine, unless you include the manipulation, the corruption, and the greed above morality components of the system. The system is not flawed; the people who have learned to manipulate the system represent the flawed components of that system. Much of what people say about the corruption with the corporations, and the other components of the economy is true, but we need to realize that we should not blame the system, but the evil entities within the system. The American economy is much like a gun. It is fine until some idiot get a hold of it and does something stupid.

Vic, It has not worked since inception in the Reagan Administration. If that has not sunk in yet, you need to look at Real Wages over the last three decades, average and mean incomes over the last three decades, and economic growth over the last three decades.

Trickle down economics is real Voo Doo economics.

"Trickle Down Economics" is a part of the economic process. It is not a policy. It is not a plan. It is not implemented by anyone. It just happens naturally. The reason that it no longer works efficiently is that the economic system is being manipulated and the natural economic process cannot function in a normal manner. It was not created by the Republicans.

Oh, I get it. What you are saying is that in order to keep capital flowing in an economy there have to be artificial incentives to put the capital into productive and constructive enterprises.
The issue you and I seem to have is the process of creating those incentives. One effective way is to tax income that is not either used to purchase goods and services or invested in new domestic productive capacity.
If WalMart were taxed as simple income on the money they invest in inventory from offshore producers, but allowed to declare domestic purchases as business expenses where do you think WalMart would obtain it's inventory? If your friendly Mercedes Benz dealer had to pay taxes on imported inventory, but could deduct the cost of domestic inventory, where do you think Mercedes Benz would put their factory? If capital investments made outside the US were taxed how much US capital would be invested in a tee shirt factory in Malaysia?
The concept of Trickle Down Economics is in fact a unique incentive to take capital out of the US economy and invest it in off shore development. Yes it's natural, so is walking.
But, Vic, if you are going to insist on defining Trickle Down as part of the economic process, you have to also accept that Taxation and incentives are also part of the economic process. None of it is "natural." Envision yourself on an island with no contact with other cultures. How many dollars would it take to buy a portable generator?

Vic, the present "natural" economic system in the US has created a serious problem. It's called by various names, "Balance of Trade" is the most common one.
With Reagan deregulation, and Clinton free trade, we have created the same situation found in early colonial Spain. We are exporting very few commodities, and importing very many. 17th Century Spain imported many commodities too. One of them was gold. They used that gold as an export, buying goods from other countries, generating huge economic growth in those countries, and ending economic growth in Spain.
I like to use the history of Spanish Decline as an example of what is happening in the US today. READ THIS. It may give you a partial picture of what is happening, quite naturally, in the USA today. We have exported our productive capacity, have declined into a society of idle wealthy and those who struggle day to day. Spain went through it in the 16th and 17th centuries. In Russia the decline began a little before WW I. In Germany the decline was created after WW I and accelerated by poor policy. Hitler was a product of the Treaty of Versailles. The Russian Decline gave rise to the Communist Revolution. In German it gave rise to the Nazi Regime. In Spain it gave rise to famine and war.
You're right, trickle down is natural, and so is revolt against the Monarchy, Oligarchy, and the Plutocracy. We can resign ourselves to becoming a nation in turmoil, and poverty, or we can change the direction we are going and put a stop to the unfettered massing of wealth and power in a small minority of our citizens.
A few days ago Barack Obama referenced our governing policy as "Robin Hood in reverse." It was an apt description, but could also have been expressed as King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham on steroids.

Going out on a smart@ssed limb and guessing that folks who can't grasp or explain what has happened to ultra republican Mississippi (1) at all, and (2) RELATIVE TO any blue state probably won't grasp colonial Spain.

@ Karl...

Ok, people are making the concept of "trickle down economics" into something that it is not, nor has ever been. It is a concept, and I will explain it as simply as I can. You can complicate the concept of trickle down economics, but the true meaning and direction is the same.

Example...

If I were to take my own money and invest in a venture, such as a small business, the process would begin. I would probably borrow money to start the venture, so money would flow from me to the one from which I would borrow. I would then have to find a suitable location for my business. I would then allow more money to flow with either the purchase or leasing of the location for my venture. At this point, I would have to renovate the location to meet my specific needs, and to fill that location with furniture, fixtures, etc., which would represent more money going to the other businesses that would supply my needs. I would then need to add electricity, phones, Internet, water, gas, and other essentials that would represent more money going into the system of our economy. I would then have to hire people to fill the needed positions within my business, so jobs would be created and money would go to these employees in the form of payroll. I also would now be responsible for payroll taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, and property taxes, so even more money is now represented. Those new employees who now receive payroll from me would spend their money as they see needed, so the spending and added money flow continues. As time passes, and the company grows, more employees may be needed, and even the possibility of opening new locations, maybe many new locations, so the same distribution of money based on the simple concept of "trickle down economics" is in full play. It is not a government program or plan; it is the natural process that I just described. It is just that simple, yet the political implications are clouding the actual meaning of "trickle down economic" to mean something other than this natural part of the economic process.

It has nothing to do with focusing on the wealthy and waiting for their wealth to drop down to those below. It never has been, but “trickle down economics’ has been used as a political tool for many years, and it has been presented as something entirely different from what it actually is.

Vic,
If I read you right, and comprehend what you are saying, you understand the theory of Trickle Down" perfectly. The problem is, it does not work the way it would if there was no flaw.
The flaw is financing the flow of capital from the top down.
Your hypothetical rests on having capital available. In 1953 the top 1% earned 10% of the nation's income. Starting in 1983 that share began to rise. Today that is close to 23%.
Just as an aside, in 1926 the top 1% took home about 23% of the income earned in the country. From 1936 to 1945 the top marginal tax rate was 94%.
I have to make an assumption here. When the marginal income tax rate was 94% the distribution of income through the population was wider. 99% of the population earned 90% of the income.
In 1965 the top marginal rate was cut, to 72%, and it had been declining for some time after 1950. At that time the top 1% were earning just over 8% of total national income. That share remained fairly stable for 30 years.
With the Regan Trickle Down Economic experiment the top 1% saw their share of income rise. By 2007 it was up by 15%. Changes in tax law has brought that disparity down a little, in 2010 it was 21%.

I think I have covered the whole span of Trickle Down Economics.

Total tax revenues, local, state and federal are about a quarter of GDP. Between 1975 and 2005 total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has been under 30%. That happens to be twice what Mitt Romney's 2010 tax return reflects. It is far more than Warren Buffet pays in income tax.
Something should jump out at you. Income taxes are not the only taxes. And the very rich are not paying extra sales taxes or property taxes or excise taxes, the rest of us are.

There is a solution. Part of it is a financial transaction tax. Since the super wealthy make a large share of their income from financial transactions, and unless you are day trading or making loads of money in short term capital gains so are you.

When you hear that half of Americans pay no income tax, keep in mind that the vast majority of that population earns less than three times what Americans call poverty. And that population pays sales, property, excise and other taxes on virtually all their income,

Errata. I said More than half of Americans earn less than 3 times the amount considered poverty. That is not the case. The median income is 51 thousand dollars a year. Average is 41 thousand. Three times the poverty level for a family of 3 is 55 thousand dollars. If the figures are correct, HHS for Poverty, and BLS for income, MORE than half of American households are at or below three times the poverty rate. Poverty for a family of three in 2011 was $18,530.

"...the economic system is being manipulated and the natural economic process cannot function in a normal manner."
The economic system was always being manipulated. This is chronic Ayn Rand boyish fantasy land; Every economic system has been manipulated, and the only manner that is "normal" for some economic system is that which a society outright constructs and sets up rules to actualize over time. Depending on the rules and power allocations, the systems are more or less susceptible to whatever manipulation---and executive and legislative branches can absolutely pull levers that move you toward or away from greater susceptibility. There is no such thing as some theoretical, "naturally flowing" perfectly working systems with practical examples in history.

If you don't lock up and alarm a bank at night, it will be robbed, thereby preventing it from "working properly". Well no kidding. That's called regulation; it's a friction and with all regulation you must actively evolve with the system's evolved capacity for manipulation--chicken wire won't do indefinitely. Eventually you need a vault. Even the theoretically perfectly working system has a finite shelf life and will only work until the evolution of manipulation outstrips its "proper working". It's exactly why regularly we should rewrite the tax code (among other things). That's routine maintenance. Revising GAAP and FASB rules---routine maintenance. The whole body of Corporate Law--routine maintenance. Presidential elections---routine maintenance. There is no such thing as getting to a place where the manipulation stops.

But I'd love to hear a conservative explain the Russian economic example. Two things conservatives never talk about: Dirt poor republican run red states (to be 4 times redundant in one sentence), and post communist Russia that did everything western conservatism prescribed, but on steroids through an IV and drop dead failed. Not a peep.

I am stating that our economic system is being manipulated and is corrupt...What part of that statement that is coming from a conservative did you not comprehend?

"So, after 30 years we’re still waiting for the promised trickle to trickle down."

None is so blind as those who will not see.

WOW!

When you go to public venues for "discussions" you have some responsibility to present with a basic level of intellectual decorum. A basic command of formal logic.

You typical dumb white Drop Dead Idiots don't have it. You don't even know you don't have it. Being white you're able to go on rarely having to prove you're even coherent. You breed in racially polarized dumb white homogeneous funks of effectively heritable cultural and political degeneracy. Cerebral wastelands in the worst white ghettos of Dixie and Appalachia or black-lunged West Virginia---or goodness forbid, 9th poorest loud and proud TEXAS---and you come here without hint of logical discourse.

You preach about "economics" and can't even explain a simple poverty trend for red America vs. blue America. You don't even try. But want to be treated seriously.

Your lack of command of any basic logic s WHY red states FAIL legislatively---overpaying for prisons for drug offenders and underpaying for education, or unable to pass a 1% sales tax that will pay for itself 33 times.
WHY red states FAIL standardized tests worse than EVERYBODY.
WHY RED STATES are dead last in everything--from education, to infant mortality, to scientific discovery, to general welfare, to business innovation.
WHY you can't economically compete losing opportunities steadily to blue and purple states even when you have an "advantage" like Georgia.
WHY nobody travels to the US to visit the red states because they don't represent anything the US is globally respected for. They prefer California and NY and DC.
WHY you have no Harvards, no Yales, no Stanfords, no UC system, no MIT, no Johns Hopkins, no MET, no MOMA, no Apples, no Microsofts, no Googles, no Oracles, no Wall Street, no JPLs, no CalTech, no NASA, no Goddards, no Mayo Clinic... (I'm tired).
WHY you are ultra racially polarized.
WHY you LOST THE CIVIL WAR.

You are America's lesser and utterly dumber self. In letter, in spirit, and quantitatively.  Nothing's clearer. And you prove it with every post.

Thanks teri a, a good rant might be just the medicine needed to clean up the thinking of some people who actually know they need brainwashing and go to the wrong laundry.

I fear trickle down just brings allll the rant right out of me, Karl. No shut off valve...

A shut off valve would be a total wast of a great talent.

Good god.

Some lies just shouldn't stand: Chicago Booth, where Professor Friedman was on the faculty, is notoriously conservative: "Dr. Friedman is widely regarded as the foremost conservative economist and played an influential role in the monetary and neo-classical economics movement."

The distancing now of Friedman by conservatives on this thread---in fact the declaring of his very academy as being "LEFT" by conservatives gets addressed here, and it's stunning how conservatives today have crazily marched so right they would kill off the most conservative economist they once hailed---and even their god Ronald Reagan. It's incoherence. This is what happens when you have a black president whom republicans hate so hard they end up hating to the RIGHT of republican folks they used to praise. I mean, does Friedman sound like a liberal? Unbelievable.

I hope folks see the incoherence I'm outlining and how powerful race and President Obama's election have been in the evolved "reason" and neuroses of today's white conservatives.

"And another thing" poor whites...

Address anger that matters--not this cute stuff. Address anger killing off the middle class which is your only white hope: the xenophobic poor white demographic that hates black folks in the white house so hard---and has voted trickle down for umpteen generations in red America with nothing to show for it---but it hates black folks so hard it prefers giving its children no future over "sinking" to voting for the party of "the blacks". That's anger. Poor white conservatives are drop dead the angriest people in America. And it's never worked for you. And, amusingly to some of us, rich whites think--and talk--worse of you than black folks.Deal with it.

This is fun!

A big deal never mentioned about race and trickle down is how black Americans (poor and rich) have actually known rich white Americans better than many poor whites have because black folks were always somehow working for them (even having babies for them in silence) or linked to people who did. Poor whites, on the other hand, were regularly avoided by privileged whites at all cost. In fact, rich whites often "collaborated" in business with blacks going back to slavery and patent generation---(think Thomas Edison and Granville T. Woods, or Alfred Blalock and Vivien Thomas. For the record, Strom "segregationist" Thurmond and James "Godfather of Soul" Brown were longtime acquaintances. Thurmond even attended the black wedding of a black state Supreme Court Justice's child who is a longtime family friend (and danced with the Justice's wife--so much for segregation).

It's amusing knowing what rich whites really think of poor whites, knowing who they really are and then seeing poor whites thinking (and voting) like they have something in common with the rich whites and are voting "their interest" in trickle down. It's a perch and view only black Americans have had. They know--really---both how selfish rich whites are, and how hoodwinked poor ones are.

Liberal company policy conservative trickle downers would never accept from Google. (1) They wouldn't live in CA. (2) They wouldn't work for a liberal company. (3) They don't like money.

(It's fine. Stay in Alabama.)

I sure wish I were getting points for all this disputation. But I insulted a seriously angry Gatherite, and go myself punished. I am only allowed to stay and play if I behave, and I don't get any points for anything. I could post a poem about kittens and warm milk but what's the point?

This is evil. And I missed it. Where else shall we gather---those who prefer real conversations, that is---because I don't do kittens and I'm lactose intolerant.

I like kittens, Karl! But I much prefer serious discussions on the economy right now. I have always said - if trickle down worked, we'd all be tossing money around right now. In my city, there are plenty of local business with Help Wanted signs in windows. These are all small, local businesses, such as hardware shops, delis, carryouts, etc. The very very few people I know with any amount of wealth are not hiring others - they are cramming their money away and continue to live well.

Please note that I am still using this, and doing my level best to keep civil I don't need the points, they are not real cash. But I do value the forum enough to use it.

Kittens and warm milk are a good mix. The kittens are happy and fed, and don't have to spend hours trying to find a cooperative cow.

There are jobs jeanne, and some of them actually pay more than minimum wage.

Oh loook. That rag of staunch liberalism, Forbes---run as it is by a staunch conservative---has ranked The Most Entrepreneurial Colleges---the top 20 in fact. Yes, that's entrepreneurial, as in, smart, industrious, self-reliant, personal-initiative-taking wealth generators, sort of what I've been claiming the liberals to be. And oh loook how NOT ONE is in a red state. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Goose-egg. Part of the abundant evidence of the lower caste dim witted inferior conservatives and the institutions they build, business they attract, policies they implement, and non-self-reliant values they inculcate. Oh dear.