Are you for Trickle Down Capitalism?

There are a lot of trades where training is reasonably priced or paid for by the hiring company. Then again if you’ve the skills for online media go for it. There’s no reason you couldn’t be the next Zuckerberg.

 

You mean the multiplier effect? Taught in literally every beginning econ class.

 

No I mean from the end of slavery till FDR when the Supreme court had a hard on for "Sanctaty of contract" and refused to let Government interview in labor, meaning people were working for up to 16 hours a day for less then a dollar a day in factory towns or actual towns controlled by a few companies with private armies. AKA the reason for the 16th and 17th amendments.

 

I was in a trade school for TV in Canada for 1 semester, but sadly grades didn't keep up but I did learn a lot about how to do stuff with graphics, cameras, video editing, audio and stage lighting. I would be more like a digital hollywood with everyday people then the next Zuckerberg since its using the big platforms to make money not creating one.

 

Well, whether it’s creating new or leveraging the old, for those who have an aptitude for and enjoy using this technology there certainly is a lot of opportunity.

For what it’s worth you’ve made a good point about grades vs. learning. One thing I would change about my post high school education if I could would have been putting more effort into learning than good grades. The idea that good grades and successful education are one in the same is common but sadly misleading and sometimes ruinous to the student.

Could you audit or sit in on some classes somewhere to round out what you already have learned?

 

No sorry it did not fail. Trickle up invariably fails because there is damn little to trickle up. The bottom 47% pays almost zero in income taxes now, and little to nothing ever trickles up. In fact the bottom twenty percent have a substantial portion of FICA and medicaid refunded to them via EITC and other programs.

 

Trickle down is an example of the art of manipulating the gullible. Reaganomics was box-standard Military Keynesianism, but such language is uncomfortable reading for the right wing. Solution? Reinvent the vocab! Military Keynesianism is notoriously inefficient, helping to explain why trickle down has been found to reduce growth rates.

 

Reagan started trickle down economics.
Obama opened the floodgates and took it to a whole other level Reagan would have never dreamed of.
Obama was the absolute KING of trickle down economics.

 

Why don't you name what period you're referring to.

 

Telemarketing?

If someone has the tenacity and skills to make some kind of life in telemarketing, they could earn many times more than they are earning if they took those selling skills to a company who would be willing to send them out in the world and pay dearly for that kind of talent.

Of course, if they don't present well in public, it's probably better to remain physically anonymous to the buyer.

 

YOUR TURN: History has proved trickle-down doesn’t work

https://www.ithacajournal.com/story/opinion/2017/11/29/turn-history-proved-trickle-work/108130340/

 

Constitutional Republic + Strong property rights in the individual as against the State + sophisticated finance and markets = stability that leads to prosperity = Americans, not just rich ones, enjoyed more advancement in the human condition during the 20th century than the whole of people on the planet during the whole of human time on Earth COMBINED:

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa364.pdf

Call it trickle down, flood down, cram down, whatever social science weasel jargon one chooses, when I was a kid a phone was a thing attached to a wall that there was usually only one of in a house. Today a phone is a dirt cheap supercomputer in your hand with more raw power than NASA had in total in the 60s.

The guy who invented Email can have 10,000 solid gold yachts floating on seas of champagne for all I care in light of the REAL WEALTH via saving of TIME, the most precious substance, that person/people brought to my life.

 

The information revolution is proof of one thing: the importance of the public sector and universities in generating technical progress. That's rather inconvenient for the trickle down cult...

 

Thank you!!!

 

Financiers are far more important and productive in generating, and more importantly proliferating, "technical progress" than academics; the private sector dwarfs the public to boot as well where innovation is concerned. Claiming that the puny contributions of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex are even a medium slice of the whole tamale, ESPECIALLY in ratio to the immense cost, waste and corruption associated with the Complex, is a nonstarter. It's like claiming whoever invented the wheel also invented the Maserati, or that ARPANET was the "internet," a frequent fallacy seen here from Complex denizens.

Good, even great ideas are a dime a dozen, financial and market execution of them by people taking risk are much more rare and valuable. You can go to 100 trade shows a week full of people selling their better mousetrap. Labor and ideas are commodities, not so management and risk-taking.

The world has far more to thank J.P. Morgan for than Albert Einstein.

 

Name any aspect of the information revolution and it's difficult not to acknowledge the key contributions by the public and education sectors.

Depends on the innovation. Minimising production costs? Yep. Not so much when it comes to radical shifts.

But hey, you play pretend. Isn't that a key element of trickle down?

 

I've been a business owner for 50 years. I've been broke, rebuilt, succeeded in 6 of the seven businesses I founded, now running a small manufacturing company producing my own inventions, with clients in over 110 countries. This is not to be bragging- it is to say that I've been in a position to learn a great deal about business economics.

Capitalism, or free-market, is nobody's enemy- just the opposite. The basis is that the free enterprise is totally dependent on meeting the needs of customers, and doing so with a cost that customers are willing to pay. Many products are invented before there is a demand, because they are good enough to create demand. In conducting such a business- the owners, the people who are taking every bit of the risk- are the last to benefit. The employees, who are selling their services to a single customer, are protected by laws and provided with multiple benefits- none of which are provided to business owners. The customers and creditors too are protected by various consumer laws, warranties and a number of other factors. Again, the business is not. Loss to shoplifters, embezzlers, etc- no recovery, no help from anybody. Thus business is not preying on anyone, although numerous people prey on business. If customers don't like you or if you are not efficient enough to be competitive- your business is dead, and nobody cares. Business is competitive- only the most efficient survive. Imagine how that would be if we subsidized the poor business people, so the worst could survive too- and of course, do that by taxing others. That is what our system does when we provide many of our social services benefits, we subsidize non-productivity and label it with some noble term. Very bad idea.

So why do so many hate business successes? Why do employees they think that despite the fact they provide their services at a mutually agreed compensation, that their employer is stealing from them and owes them more? Why is the general public eager to highly tax business success, but has no sympathy for the 50% of businesses that do not survive the first five years? They talk about business wanting to beat down the consumer. Has it occurred to them that if the buyers have no money, the businesses all fail? Business wants all people to thrive- but giving money away, paying people more than their work is worth, IS NOT helping them thrive- it is subsidizing them, at cost that simply can't be absorbed by the business and gets built back into the cost of goods and services. To thrive, regardless if you are business or employee, you must produce value; be valuable.

While it is true that business needs consumers, consumers are not making things happen. Consumers are more like a person with a problem- perhaps a desire for some convenience, or someone with a flat tire and no spare. That person does nothing to make business happen other than the fact they want help and are waiting for someone to offer it. The thing that drives an economy is the person who makes thing happen; who recognizes a need, invents a product, gets the financing, finds a way to produce it cheaply enough that many can buy it, and markets it. 100% risk to that person- but zero risk to the consumer. That in turn fills the need of the people. It provides the jobs, from building the factory that will make the product to supporting all the people in between up to the time UPS or whomever hands it to the customer in need. Independent business in the lynchpin of a strong economy, and nothing else works so well. All you have to do is get out of the way, and the motivated people will make things happen in the world, and the result is that the less motivated can have a better life.

It is true people identify problems, but it's also true they fail to balance the view and identify the cause. Most importantly- business is not a social service agency, something created so you can have a job, something that should adjust your compensation according to your needs rather than your value. It is not a replacement for your parents, not there to compensate for your personal problems by making them problems of the business. The relationship between an employee and a business IS A BUSINESS DEAL- there is a buyer and a seller. The business is the customer of the employee- who in reality is also in business for themselves, selling their product to a customer. If employees treat their employees as customers, they like to be treated when they are customers, they would find things improving dramatically.

Most of the complaints about capitalism come from people who think that the world is supposed to be "fair" when it comes to what you get out of it, but is supposed to be sympathetic, understanding and tolerant when it comes to what you put in. It is perceived as simply unfair that some are great successes in life while others simply coast. It's far more comfortable to think that the winners have cheated rather than accept that those who didn't do well- didn't do enough. Fact is, people are invariably their own worst enemy, and invariably, look for someone else to blame for it. The boss, the system, the government- anybody but themselves.

 

Already did. Electricity.

So yeah, put all the spice and blanket traders, tinkerers and tradesmen, pirates and profiteers, dropouts in garages and financiers of voluntary markets on one side of the world-historical innovation seesaw, gov-edu and the broader fiat/command Complex on the other, wonder which side will win the historical innovation prize... by 10,000 miles? Eh, I kid, I KNOW who wins hands down, no contest, no debate possible.

But you know on second thought, while the industrial revolution formed throughout the private sector, our illustrious Ivies -were- pumping out theologians by the truckload. What a boon to humanity! Where would we ever be without Jonathan Edwards?

But but the Complex did give us social "sciences," together with all the misery, costs and counterproductive results. For example, before the advent of the institutional mental health industry, we had a few kooks, today we have 1/4 of the female population over 40 on antidepressants. Go Complex!

But but but you know what, there have been -numerous- innovations contributed by the public sector... appurtenant to that fun thing governments like to inflict on humanity from time to time called "war." Not a fan personally.

"Trickle down" is a fabricated, propaganda term and semantic nullity, and broadly known as such today to the degree that anyone using it is either an ignorant dupe or purposeful liar. No "c" option.

 

No most of the complaints is that we think everyone should have a basic standard of living, everyone should have free access to healthcare, and to affordable education, that wages should be high enough that one person can work and provide for a basic family of 4. We believe that basically the rights given to people in the EU should be rights that the US also gives. Parental leave, sick leave, vacation leave.

It is stealing if you make people work for you at rates that they can not afford to live without government assistance. It is stealing to lobby congress to give you guys tax breaks when you don't need them. Play fair and and no more complaining.

 

IME most complaints about capitalism today come from ordinary garden variety capitalists, FIAT capitalists who want all the benefits of it without dirtying their own hands in competition and hard work, seeking the government to TAKE via taxes, redistribution, GRANTS, government contracts, etc. from their fellow man and GIVE to them.

The "ideology" is just window dressing shuck and jive over that reality. They don't believe it. Bernie Sanders has HOW MANY houses again?

They aren't sincere, just the laziest thieves in history. At least legit burglars do their own burgling.

 

Given what you've been asked, this made me laugh at least. Who invented electricity then? At best, and I'm bring charitable, you're switching discussion to Coase and his understanding of public good provision.

You type alot and say very little. Perhaps not a cunning idea when trying to advertise private sector efficiency?

Trickle down is an appropriate pish take for supply side economics. Constructed around a fake debate with neo-Keynesianism, it guaranteed cretinous policy-making. For the consequences of that, see Thatcherism. That led to low productivity, created by a short termism where rent was easily available through low paid employment with little upskilling opportunity.

 

Imagine the United States without the history that included Morgan, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Gould, Crocker/Stamford/Huntington/Hopkins, Ford, etc..

 

Capitalism is the economic system that benefits society the most. Any other system leads to less wealth, more poverty, and more misery.

 

JFK on his across the board tax cut in 1963: "A rising tide lifts all boats."

 

Reagan cared as much for the American people as Trump does now, both just as evil. Reagan introduced Trickle down to heart the middle class, point blank. He wanted to put americans back in wage slavery, he knew it would fail, he liked the idea of hurting 10s of millions to help enrich himself. Reagan and Trump are clones.