For those who do not believe in TRICKLE DOWN...

Spending is spending no matter who does this, or when, or on what. And this spending energizes the economy...and if you don't believe this, then try to fathom what happens to an economy if we cut back spending by 25%?

Regarding the underlined above, it's a point in which we 'raise' taxes so high that we will get diminished returns.

You don't have the slightest idea if income tax rates are low right now because tax rates can and should vary according to current spending. And just because we have deficit spending right now does not indicate that taxation is too low because we must also consider the amount of spending. If our idiot president, and idiot Congress, and idiot Americans could ever decide what they expect of the federal government, then and only then will we know how much taxation is required. Until then all the talk about taxes is 100% BS...

 

All the spending in the world doesn't matter if you've got a currency worth very little.

Spending should be cut to prevent too much currency devaluation.

It applies to both ends. If taxes were decreased to 1%, the total tax revenue would be minuscule compared to current amounts. By the same token, if taxes were increased to 90%, then revenue would decrease due to loss of industry.

I can agree with that. We do need to be more decisive in our wants.

 

In my opinion, a better analogy is a rising tide lifts all boats. Trickle down by analogy has proven to be too fickle.

 

The largest political party at the moment is the eligible voters who don't participate in the process, since they are not represented by either of the corporate owned parties.
　
　
Realistically there are only 2 choices. And for the last two presidential elections about half of the voters voted the party line. Those are your idiots.
　
　
　
In any case the election process belong to the two party system. They make the rules, they set up the process, they all but dictate who may be involved, and more than anything else, with all the voter fraud, gerrymandering of districts, dangling chads, electronic voting machines with no paper trail, they also are in charge of counting the votes, and determine which of them will hold the gold coin for the next few years each and every time. The house always wins, because they control the odds.
　
　
Don't tell me let me guess, and if I am wrong then I sincerely apologize, but didn't you vote for the McCain/Palin ticket last go round? Are you going to vote for whomever the republican party chooses for you to decide from? If so, you are this "Joe-blow" voter, and you are the problem!

 

Unless you can prove that the pink pennies in the OP don't go anywhere, then you must admit that all spending, no matter what, where or when, energizes the economy.

60% of GDP is personal consumption. The trickle effect only talks about the process of spending within this 60%. If you wish to increase spending, then everyone needs to find some money from savings, or the mattress, or wherever, and spend it...get it into productive circulation. This is unlikely on any large scale so the trickle effect of money is not 'the solution' but simply 'part of the solution' to energizing the economy. If you want the creation of millions of middle-class jobs, and sustain these jobs for many years, then we must greatly increase our exports by $1-$2 trillion...

 

I am not questioning the value of the circulation of money in money based markets or any potential multiplier effect which can generate a positive return on that form of investment which can be appropriated for the general welfare.

I agree to disagree that we cannot solve official poverty with modern economics. The laws and infrastructure are already in place in every State of the Union and the federal districts.

All it requires is sufficient morals to bear true witness to our own laws.

 

The trickle effect premise is that all these pennies have been accumulated at the top and then posits that some of them will leak out to circulate indefinitely in the greater economy.

In fact this is how equity markets have worked throughout history. There are only a few things that preclude the equity markets from accumulating all the pink pennies in perpetuity. One of them is the periodic collapse of the economy when there is not enough pink pennies left outside the equity markets for day to day commerce to proceed. When that happens many of the pennies in the market just disappear into thin air and many others flee the markets and re-enter general circulation. Another is the regular creation of new pink pennies to circulate outside the equity markets. In the past the creation of new pink pennies was regular but somewhat sporadic, mostly dependent on the finding of new deposits of gold and silver. More recently pink penny manufacture has become a more esoteric art perpetrated by central banks.

A third way to preclude the accumulation of all the pink pennies is through taxation which allows the government to redistribute them.

In any case, equity market accumulation has proven to be a somewhat final resting place for a great majority of pink pennies which, once in rarely find a way out. This is a pernicious and debilitating problem that creates an ever growing need for more and more pink pennies as the markets draw so many away from general circulation while being parsimonious in returning them. In fact it has often been the case that markets have climbed, accumulating pink pennies while their underlying economies have stagnated and declined because there were not enough pink pennies to go around.

 

You seem to be making a good case for banks and central banking.

 

You know, perhaps the OP is correct. The pink pennies actually DO go to everybody eventually. Maybe it's the big green dollars that are being sucked up, up and away while we're all watching the pretty pink pennies.

 

Unless you believe that the USA is going to abandon capitalism, none of these various schemes are going to solve anything.

We have an economic system in the USA which is shared throughout the world and this is not going to change. The USA is not going rogue against capitalism! If anything capitalism will be strengthened.

There can be NO solutions to poverty until we can define poverty and define the problems stemming from poverty. As long as we do not qualify and quantify poverty, all the talk about poverty is 100% politics...

 

The ONLY way possible for you to be correct about pink pennies accumulating at the top is if all of those at the top put all pink pennies into their mattresses...

 

Trouble is- your wrong. If that were the case the years under bush should have resulted in massive amounts of jobs. Instead we lsot jobs. Trickle down never works on a large scale. NEVER.

 

Trickle down works. Siphon up works even better. We reached the point where the giant sucking siphon outpaced the trickle 20 years ago.

 

Why do you believe that any public policy scheme which conforms to the theory of supply and demand would not attempt to solve for any ineffiency above one percent; especially in the market for labor? The laws and the infrastructure already exists. The only thing lacking is sufficient morals to bear true witness to our own laws regarding the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will. It is simply that moral failure that is the root cause of poverty in the US, not bad habits or bad genes on the part of persons who experience a poverty of money in our money-based, mixed-market, political-economy.

Official poverty metrics are already fixed by the general government, as a Standard for the Union.

 

Do you have some data which shows what the economic picture would have been with and without the Bush/Obama tax cuts?

You say we 'lost' jobs but you don't quantify anything. Please quantify how many jobs would have been saved or lost without the tax cuts being in place?

If not...it's just political BS...

 

So do you, or do you not, have an answer to where all those pink pennies travel and for how long they travel?

 

Once again...There can be NO solutions to poverty until we can define poverty and define the problems stemming from poverty. As long as we do not qualify and quantify poverty, all the talk about poverty is 100% politics.

Definition of poverty:


Problems caused by poverty:

 

Poverty is already defined by the general government of the Union.

Simply looking for excuses to not solve our current social dilemmas, does not inspire confidence in your sincerity to your alleged, philanthropic Cause.

 

You are the one who brought up 'poverty'. So please...

Definition of poverty:

Problems caused by poverty:

 

Definition of poverty: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

Problems caused by poverty: An unnecessary and improper use of the police power is one result of poverty, such as our conservative, War on Drugs.

Our wars on the abstractions of crime, poverty, and terror are other manifestations of poverty in our republic, since it could otherwise be claimed that such social services are truly not needed, if a person cannot claim to be in official poverty.

 

So...according to your reference above, poverty is any single person with an income around $11K or lower...right?

How are those people doing who are earning $12K? Do you have a label for people who earn $12K? What do you label people who earn $15K?

I'm assuming you believe the war on drugs only effects those earning less than $11K per year?

Can you provide one example each of 'abstractions of crime' and 'abstractions of terror'?

 

They sort of do, they put all the pink pennies into their collective mattress of the equity markets. This mattress has a few holes in it so some of the pennies leak into the greater economy once in a while but for the most part the pennies are collected up and stay in the big mattress to be traded exclusively among the mattress dwellers.


The only thing that keeps the economy going at all is the creation of more pennies. Lately they have let some others onto the mattress, pension schemes, mutual funds and so forth so that they can have more of the pink pennies in the mattress which creates the illusion that the pink pennies are being shared more equably across the economy when in fact it just allows even more pennies to be permanently trapped in the mattress.


If the creation of new pennies ever stopped the economy would fail from a lack of pennies to buy and sell things since the pennies continuously migrate to the markets and are not available for other purposes. Many seem to think that a market collapse would move the pink pennies from the market to the economy but this is not what happens, many pink pennies would just disappear into thin air if the markets collapsed.

Where did all the pink pennies in the housing market go when home equities collapsed?
Equity markets are no different.