craig hawkins

Certified Financial Planner, Certified Financial Planners Board of Standards, Inc.

This conversation is closed.

Trickle Down Economics - Where is it successfully practiced?

I work with many Conservatives and I've been asking the same question for over 20 years. Where is Supply Side Economics practiced and what are the conditions of that community? I was very disappointed with TED for not posting Nick Hanauers Talk - Income InEquality. We all know the corporate sponsors would have been upset, but restore the "Fairness Doctrine". "Ideas Worth Spreading", live up to the name and offer both sides. Have someone like Arthur Laffer come to TED and present the counter balance of this discussion. I know the talk boarders on line of Political speak but ideas worth discussing.

  • thumb
    Aug 28 2012: The short answer is nowhere.

    Money doesn't trickle down, it trickles up. If money trickled down then rich people would be getting poorer and poor people would be getting richer. If you can find a country where that is happening then you will find the trickle down theory actually describing something happening in the real world.

    In general, supply side economic policies have been put in place all over the world since the days of Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney. There hasn't been a whole lot of trickling down, but an genuine investigation into the consequences of of those policies couldn't hurt.
    • thumb
      Aug 28 2012: it happened in many countries. just look at the income distribution of medieval times. there were peasants and there were the noble. income was separated by a gaping hole. then it was changed as cities developed. capitalism created the middle class in the 18th-19th century, hard to pinpoint the exact time.

      it does not happen today in the US. it is a good question why. why would the system that created the middle class suddenly destroy it? can we suspect something else?
      • thumb
        Sep 2 2012: From the middle ages to the 19th century, thats a pretty big jump in history. Wars were fought, discovories were made, continents were colonized, empires were over turned.

        Did capitalism cause a trickle down effect in the 18th and 19th centuries? Assuming you are talking about America, there was a lot more going on than just capitalism. There was oppurtunity for poor people, but it was built on conquest more than capitalism. The government was giving away free land which was stolen from the indiginous people. There were resources that were unvalued by those people, and so were left in abundance to be taken by the european immigrants. The most obvious was gold, but also there was coal, iron, and the most astonishing lumber on the west coast the europeans had ever seen.

        Of course, rise of the american economy during that time was also built on slavery. How do they figure into the trickle down effect?

        By the beginning of the 20th century wealth had been centralized again to unsustainable levels and the economy collapsed. The middle class was almost non existant. It was only the post depression reforms that lead to the strengthening of the middle class and a prosperous post war period. Those very reforms have been undone using the "trickle down theory" as justification and now the middle class is in danger again. Inequality is as great as it was in the days just prior to the great depression.
        • thumb
          Sep 2 2012: no jump there, but hundreds of years of increasingly capitalist economy. in free market capitalism, there is no up or down trickle, that was not my point. my point was that the poor got richer. that was the great achievement of capitalism. increased consumption for the masses.

          there are many attempts to attribute the success of capitalism to slavery or colonialism. however, neither of these can explain what happened. there was no slavery in europe in the 1800!s, and there was no colonialism in germany or the US at that time. this is nothing but a copout answer, so we don't have to answer to the question, how could the world develop the fastest under free market, if we want to blame bad things on the free market?
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2012: A lot more happened between the middle ages and the 19th century than "hundreds of years of increasingly capitalist economy". That's a gross simplification of history. Economies are not simply driven by ideologies and economic systems. Economies result from many factors, including wars, plagues, famines, technology, religions, weather, and revolutions.

        Are you arguing that colonialism and slavery had no effect on the economy? Your ideology is blurring your vision of history. There is no single factor responsible for the rise of the economy in any time period. You may argue that capitalism allowed for the industrial revolution. It could be that Isaac Newton made a greater contribution with the invention of calculus and understanding of the behavior forces that allowed for the invention of the steam engine.

        Of course there is also democracy. Through democracy people in power actually have an incentive to try to benefit the poor. After all, capitalism did not benefit African Americans, Native Americans or even women in 19th century America, and neither did democracy. It was only in the 20th century when those populations gained the right to vote that they started to see some of the benefits.

        Finally, we have to remember that unfettered capitalism failed. It collapsed in the great depression. It was only after the great depression that it became clear that the invisible hand doesn't exist and it is possible for people pursuing mutual self interest can lead to mutual self destruction. Capitalism is useful, and beneficial, but it must be kept on a short leash by a strong democratic government.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2012: "wars, plagues, famines, technology, religions, weather, and revolutions"

          technology is a result of the free market economies. the other tried to stop us, but free market prevailed.

          " colonialism and slavery had no effect on the economy?"

          negligible. colonies were far away, no capital goods could be moved from there. gold and spices don't spin up the economy. in fact colonialism cost resources. the US north was more advanced than the US south. also many european countries developed fast without slaves. it is not a factor.

          "Of course there is also democracy"

          democracy is much newer. great progress already happened in the 1800's and before.

          " we have to remember that unfettered capitalism failed"

          despite it never existed? strange claim. all the good things came about as economic progress enabled them. one after the other. of course, governments and unions were always quick to claim the success for themselves.
      • Sep 9 2012: technological innovation is indeed the - conditio sine qua non - for material wellness and capitalism has had and still plays a role in this, BUT, technological innovation itself doesn't imply global and distributed improvement of peoples life conditions. the key concept that no capitalist likes to admit, is that individuals have a reason to exist only in a society, and that whatever great innovation might come up, it is always linked to something that surrounds both who makes the discover and who gives the capital (all your ideas and your money are totally worthless in a desert, and your ideas are always connected to things you've learnt somehow). the point i don't agree on with capitalist right wing conservatives is that they give the whole (i don't say they don't have merit and that they shouldn't be rewarded for that) merit of any innovation to the few who are more strictly involved with it (say the one who has the idea and the one who puts the money), thus any political intervention that tends to redistribute the effects of any innovation to the majority is often (read always) seen as loot 'n plunder. without great political battles in the '800 and '900 children of pour people would still be working, democracy would be a direct and full blown plutocracy (instead of a masked and softened one like it is today), education (high level education in europe), health-care would be exclusive prerogative of the rich. = > capitalism and free market themselves don't guarantee social progress as the only aim is to make more money and get more power. capitalism itself is not ethical.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2012: i tell you the recipe to get filthy rich. you have to find a way to give the masses something they want and they can't have now, as it is too expensive. bring down the price with some innovation, and keep doing that. that is it. that is the way to big buck. rockefeller did it, carnegie did it, ford did it, bill gates did it.

          for capitalists to get rich, they have to serve the masses. they have to make everyone's lives better.
      • Sep 9 2012: "for capitalists to get rich, they have to serve the masses. they have to make everyone's lives better." that must be the reason why everyone has improved so much his condition after 2008 financial crisis. if you still insist in seeing only the positive side of capitalism you're somewhat not intellectually honest in my opinion. i never denied the positive aspects of it, and i do agree that those who actually improve lives of everyone deserve indeed to be rewarded. unfortunately that's only one side of the coin, you always forget the other one made by capitalists with dirty hands and conscience who just exploit the need of survival of people and entire nations who are literally blackmailed without any negotiation power. the day capitalists will be made all of the stuff you're telling about, i'll become their first supporter, till then i'll keep myself critic and of the opinion that if you leave these people totally free and without rules (as it happens with finance nowadays) among those to thank there will be many to blame. again: capitalism and free market alone don't guarantee the best living conditions in our society. you might avoid to answer my points, but to pretend to sell fairytales about how good are all rich people pretending that they're in that condition because the've served the masses, is like the indian religious belief that you've earned your good/bad condition in present life because of what you did in your past life. regards.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2012: and here we go again. the loop just restarted. now comes the part when i tell you that 2008 was caused by government. boring.
      • Sep 9 2012: ouh, forgive me if i'm wasting your precious time with my trifles, you must be patient with the mass of ignorant progressives that infest this site and who really can't understand the true virtues of free market and how these can heal the problems that afflict this world. it must be frustrating to repeat every day that two plus two makes four to, intellectually speaking, dumb people. take patience great man.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2012: you in italy will be among the first to witness the failure of statism. find a good seat, and make sure you have enough popcorn. it will be hell of a show.
      • Sep 9 2012: that's the part i like best when one is short in arguments and starts desiring anything bad to those whose opinions they don't like extending them to the whole nation. thanks for wishing us all this good, though i'm afraid you'll be somewhat disappointed. have a nice day great man.
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2012: "colonies were far away, no capital goods could be moved from there. gold and spices don't spin up the economy. in fact colonialism cost resources."

        Mercantalism was the basis of the European empires. Why do you think they bothered to colonize most of the globe if they didn't want the resources? Do you think there was no trade at that time?

        "technology is a result of the free market economies. the other tried to stop us, but free market prevailed."

        The Ancient Egyptions had some of the most advanced technology of their time, so did the medieval Chinese. Was that the result of the free market? What about ancient greece? Technology is the result of human ingenuity. It happens in all cultures.

        "now comes the part when i tell you that 2008 was caused by government."

        Now you are really going off the deep end. The government did not force private companies to dish out bad loans and sell the debt as secure investments. The government did not force private companies to charge interest rates below prime, or give out loans with no money up front. Those companies did that because they knew they could sell the debt and not have to worry about the risk of the loan. The only thing the government is responsible for is not regulating them enough to prevent it from happening. The deed was done by Wall Street, that's why they bare the blame.

        You say unfettered capitalism has never existed, but how unfettered do you think it has to be? The lowest corporate tax rates in history aren't low enough? The ability to move money instantly to anywhere in the world and avoid taxation all together isn't free enough? Corporations that are larger than many countries are still too oppressed? Perhaps only if there is no government at all will you be satisfied. Of course there is no such thing functional anarchy, and if there was no government, then the corporations would become the government.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2012: colonies was an economic loss. that is a fact, and i have no intention to debate it.

          when ancient egypt led the world, there was no free markets around. when there was a race between free market and central planning, free market won.

          "caused by" and "did" are two different things. the government didn't do 2008. they merely caused it with misguided legislation, and crazy money creation by the fed.

          every government program has to be repealed that is harmful. there is no correct amount. each and every expenditure has to be scrutinized, and abandoned if it just hurts.

          "of course" is not an argument.
        • Sep 11 2012: "Now you are really going off the deep end. The government did not force private companies to dish out bad loans and sell the debt as secure investments. The government did not force private companies to charge interest rates below prime, or give out loans with no money up front. Those companies did that because they knew they could sell the debt and not have to worry about the risk of the loan. The only thing the government is responsible for is not regulating them enough to prevent it from happening. The deed was done by Wall Street, that's why they bare the blame."

          i would have spent the same words.
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2012: I hear this kind of talk from neo-libertarians all over the place. Everything good about society comes from the free market and everything bad is because of government. Whenever deregulation and lower taxes fail to create the prosperity that was promised, they always say "it was not deregulated enough!" Government is the face of tyranny and private corporations are the face of freedom for all.

        Often neo-libertarians will talk as if they have the authority of the study of economics behind them. However, economists do not all agree with those ideas. Wikipedia refers to the austrian school of economics as heterodox because it is not popular among most economists. Many economists hold to the line of study that came from Keyens after the economic collapse of the great depression.

        The fundemental problem with neo-libertarianism is it views corporations as individuals, as if exxon mobile fundamentally similar to the guy selling me tomatoes at the farmers market. That is not the way governance functions. In reality state sized corporate actors share governance with geographically tied states. The take part in the negotiation of trade deals, sit on government boards in many countries, and lobby (sometimes bribe) for legislation that they want. They directly influence the law through strategic lawsuits to set precedence they desire, and complicated licensing of technology and intellectual property. They directly influence the media through direct ownership and have an impact on democracy as a result.

        The idea that the study of economics naturally leads to more deregulation, government austerity, lower taxes is one that is strong in the public eye. However, this is not because that's what economists agree on, it's because those ideas are pushed by powerful people who are simply trying to avoid taxes. Those ideas are pushed through public relations, privately funded "think tanks" and centralized media. Not from the consensus of economists.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2012: you need to stop making statistics. you need to stop counting how many people thinks what. you need to stop counting how many people said what.

          you need to start measuring claims on their validness. that requires understanding economic theory. and if you do that, you find out that what austrian economics says, stands. what other economists say, does not stand.
        • Sep 11 2012: "I hear this kind of talk from neo-libertarians all over the place. Everything good about society comes from the free market and everything bad is because of government. Whenever deregulation and lower taxes fail to create the prosperity that was promised, they always say "it was not deregulated enough!" Government is the face of tyranny and private corporations are the face of freedom for all."

          it's like a mantra they wish all of us to believe blindly (mustn't be casual that the base of the republican party is full of bigots who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible), as so far there isn't a single example where this perfect free market has eradicated poverty allowing the huge majority of a big society (little fiscal paradises who live robbing the taxes that belong to nations whose people sweated for that can not be considered an example) to live a decent life without having to struggle to reach the end of the month (common expression we use here in italy). the nations where the best living conditions are spread among the largest number of people are in nord europe and in scandinavia particularly, where there is free market indeed, but the intervention of government makes so that through the payment of taxes (amongst the highest rates in the world!!) nobody stays behind. a friend of mine is living in denmark since 5 years and will never come back to italy if not to visit his parents and relatives: he's happy despite the cold weather :). i do agree on every single point of your post, especially when you talk about the strength of lobbies with a huge economical power to push the laws who serve their selfish interests. so far, recognizing the positive aspects of free market, i do strongly oppose their nearly total lack of empathy, their hate for the weak and their pretense that any individual must struggle alone, thats the opposite of what makes us human: belonging to a social species.
  • thumb
    Aug 24 2012: I have a problem with Trickle Down Economics - a serious problem. It suggest somehow that economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole. This is a recipe for patronage .

    The truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant - the view that government should grant favours to businesses, as a way of stimulating the economy, is flawed. There is no such thing as government money. Government takes money from you and I ; giving it to the rich through tax break or bailout is a nice way of paying friends . .

    The problem of tax should be treated differently . .

    I am for freedom. .
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +3
    Aug 23 2012: I am not aware of a single instance where it works. In fact, our economic model is the CAUSE of almost ALL of our problems. Here is an interesting video that explains why it is so bad (in less than 5 minutes)
    • thumb
      Aug 23 2012: How much does that professor get paid? Wow
      • thumb
        Aug 23 2012: He doesn't get paid by a university. He is an emeritus (retired) professor of philosophy, formerly a professional football player and journalist.
        He is not an economist. He misconstrues the words "invisible hand," which had no religious connotation in Adam Smith.
        He seems also to be involved with 9-11 conspiracy theories, according to Wikipedia.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +2
    Aug 23 2012: However much it is, he is fighting to take money out of our lives. There are alternative economic and supporting philosophical models that do not bring destruction in the name of progress. Not popular yet, but the movement is growing.
  • thumb
    Aug 23 2012: Nowhere. The money has only ever trickled up. The second you give a dollar to a poor person, they just can't wait to put it back into the hands of a corporation... and then complain, they've been cheated.

    The key to sustainable growth, is local investment. Instead of shopping at the big chain, go to the local place. Every time you shop at McDonald's you are exporting money away from the city you live in, and the people you care about. Find people who are good at things, get to know them personally, and become a responsible consumer as often as humanly possible. Intelligent consumption and investment decide the future of an economy, not the top tier tax rate.

    Lower taxes in general, across the board, are good. If you were going to pick a target to really unleash economic growth however, I would go with skilled labor. Skilled laborers can use lower tax rates to take the next step into small business owner, and they drive the real economy.
  • thumb
    Aug 23 2012: it does not matter. what matters is logic. it does not take much to see why trickle down economics makes little sense.

    so the idea is that we reduce tax for the rich, so they can pay more to the poor.

    suppose the government did not do budget cuts at the same time, so we can separate the effects.

    in that case, the only way to reduce tax at the top is to raise tax at the bottom. the extra money received by the rich might indeed used to pay wages, but it will be just enough to compensate the increased tax there. net job creation is zero.

    now suppose the government decides to cut the budget at the same time. in this case, true job creation can happen, but it is a result of the budget cut, not the "trickle down" effect. if the government decided to reduce tax at the bottom, it would result in the same increase in jobs, since now it is cheaper for employers to employ people.

    of course there are some subtleties to this. it is possible that if you redirect some money from the bottom to the top, it will rearrange the economy to produce more capital as opposed to consumption. but it does not really seem to be the case. if we make labor relatively more expensive, and make employers possess more money, it might just cancel each other out, but it is also possible that a part of the money will be used other ways, like outsourcing to china, replacing labor with machines or simply take the cash and invest it in a remote part of the world.

    moral of the story: you can't cut the bottom of the blanket, saw it to the top of the blanket, and hope to have a longer blanket. the rule of thumb is that the total amount of tax matters, not its distribution.
    • thumb
      Aug 23 2012: I would only add, that what the government uses the tax money to do matters as well. If one government were to maintain a 15% tax rate, but spend that money on education, and training resources, and cutting edge research, but another government had a 14% tax rate, but spent it on machete's... The 15% tax rate, would produce steadier long term economic growth for psychological reasons, as well as because of the return on investment created by the tax dollars.

      You might argue, that the 1% saved, will be better spent by individuals than governments... but it won't make up for one system being objectively more corrupt and destructive than another.
      • thumb
        Aug 23 2012: of course. to be precise i was talking about the negative effects of taxation. the optimum is that the government gives back as much value as they took. the reality is they give back less. and of course, underperforming someone is always easy. even if it is hard to believe sometimes, considering government measures like the MIC or the war on drugs and such.
        • thumb
          Aug 23 2012: I only mentioned it, because I think this comes up in economics discussions relatively often... Where one side rests on the implicit assumption of "equal corruption and waste in both systems", while the other side is confused, because they do not make that assumption.
        • thumb
          Aug 24 2012: I am replying to your later comment, which had no reply button.

          I agree that this particular philosophy professor is critical thinking-challenged. He shows dramatic confirmation bias.

          No one should think he represents his field.
  • thumb
    Sep 1 2012: Still, no Countries identified and it's been over 10 days since my original post. I can only think of Third World Nations, with a huge gap between the wealthy and poor. These systems provide little or no chance of upward mobility. The government (military, police) is only there to help the rich control the masses. Still looking for that example of and economy, where supply side economics has produced this utopian society. I assume this utopia would look like an first world country.
    • thumb
      Sep 2 2012: What do you mean by Third World Nations?
      • thumb
        Sep 2 2012: I would say any country that was once under colonial rule, and hasn't fully gained control of it's natural resources, legal system and equitable distribution of wealth. This is another discussion.
    • thumb
      Sep 2 2012: Craig

      You have this idea stuck in your head. Numerous comments have demonstrated that this is a specious idea.

      You owe it to yourself and your clients to clear this up.

      Can you give me an example of a trickle up economy?
      • thumb
        Sep 2 2012: Just one country. Trickle Up Economics isn't a utopian theory anyone is advocating. If you would like to start a conversation regarding this, I suggest you pose the question in your own "Conversation". There are better systems, outside of Supply Side doctrine, that provide a more equitable opportunity to participate in the middle class. We had such a system after the Great Depression, until the artificial (debt driven) economies of the last 30 years. Reaganomics has got to go. Just one country.
        • thumb
          Sep 2 2012: Are you promoting Keynesian economics?

          Regarding Reaganomics the numbers say you are 180 degrees to the truth.

          This quote from a friend of mine:

          The main point is that the additional freedom via deregulation and incentive to work, invest and produce gained via the 25% across-the-board marginal-rate tax cuts in the early '80s was strong enough to carry the U.S. through almost 25 years, until successive increases in government, regulation and/or marginal tax rates by every President since Reagan finally hammered freedom and incentives hard enough to halt and defeat the uptrend.

          The only other time this has occurred was during Harding-Coolidge
  • thumb
    Aug 24 2012: Recently, I saw a poster on the back of a bus that went along the lines of : "Mary's $400 dividend is good for all of Auckland". Capitalism dressed as socialism.

    There is no such thing as trickle down economics. All money flows from the workers to the owners.
    • thumb
      Aug 25 2012: Please explain the last sentence to me that has not been my experience.

      As matter of fact I have yet to come across a business owner who has done anything less than bust their a$$ for a very long time at great risk with a typical failure rate of 96% after 5 years.

      The fact is that most things you enjoy in your life (including that electric guitar, Leo Fender) came from a small business owner.

      As I recall you are a public school teacher. I guarantee you don't have a clue what it takes to make a business work I will also guarantee that it is hardest thing you will have EVER done.

      What a freaking glib statement you make about "all money flows from the workers to the owner. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
      • Aug 25 2012: It's called effective consumer demand for goods and services.
  • thumb
    Aug 23 2012: 1) I will mention for the millionth time that ALL new jobs come from capital investment.

    2) Capital goes where it is treated best.

    3) Extrapolating from the above if we want full employment we should encourage investment by reducing the punitive forces on investment. This is not rocket science.

    4) Unlike the idiot in TED lover's video. These are natural laws that are good for the soul. Government handouts are bad for the soul.
    • Aug 25 2012: Effective consumer demand is also a requirement of a successful economy. Taking the money out of the pockets of the middle class and the poor has reduced effective consumer demand to the point of causing a downward spiral in the economy. I am surprised that you have not noticed that.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: I hear what you are saying and it is true there has to be a consumer society. But the reality is that demand is created. Contrary to popular opinion demand is not followed it is created. For example Apple created the demand for a smart phone, Google created the demand for a better search engine, Toyota created a demand for the Lexus. How could someone want a better cellphone, search engine, or another luxury car if they did not know one existed.
        • Aug 26 2012: It works both ways. Supply can create demand and demand creates supply. People want to get around and people want to send and receive goods made in remote places. Cars, trains, planes are invented to meet the need and effective demand for transportation. The current excessive control of corporations over government via lobbyists and other means has led you to believe corporations are the main source of power. You underestimate the power of consumers and labor, I think.
        • thumb
          Aug 28 2012: No No No No.

          Investors do not drive the economy, consumers do. If there is no market demand then there are no investors, period. If an investor starts a business where there is no market demand, the business will fail, and whatever employees he or she hired will lose their jobs.

          Google did not create the demand for a better serch engine. Do you remember what searching the internet used to be like? It was frustrating. Everybody wanted a better search engine. In fact, they created that search engine with very little investment. Apple didn't create the demand for the smartphone. The iphone was one of a long list of portable devices that existed before hand, and people liked them.

          No amount of advertising allowed them to sell to people who couldn't afford them. They didn't creat a consumer market where there wasn't one.

          If investors drove the economy then the US would have a booming economy right now. After all, investors have never been richer. Where are all the billionaires rescuing the economy? They are afraid to invest because consumers are too poor to make their businesses viable.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: Rhona

        In the context of this thread the pertinent point is the thing that makes the economy grow.

        This has been proven to be encouraging investment.
        • Aug 26 2012: I disagree. Effective consumer demand is of utmost importance. No one will invest, if there is no demand for the goods or services.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: Duly noted.
        • Aug 26 2012: I wonder what "Duly noted." means. It could mean you understand the point, you agree with the point or you wrote it down in a little notebook. Maybe it means something else.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: It is an acknowledgement of what you have stated. In effect I'm saying I will agree to disagree.
        • Aug 26 2012: Thank you for the clarification.
      • thumb
        Aug 27 2012: you believe that the cart pushes the horse? what exactly is "creating demand"? demand as desire, or demand in economic sense? desire is not something we need to create, we have too much of it. economic sense, demand means that some people would prefer to have that thing over everything else. if i demand a loaf of bread, it means that i'm ready to redirect the entire economy to produce one more loaf of bread, and do not produce all the things that could be produced from the resources now used to bring me that loaf of bread. how could one, in this context, increase demand? how can i suddenly command the economy to produce more things than it currently produces? how can we miraculously increase the output of the economy? it does not even make sense to me.
      • thumb
        Aug 28 2012: Scott

        Your disagreement is duly noted.
        • Aug 28 2012: "duly noted"....... That phrase seems to hide what you really think. Your true thoughts and feelings would be appreciated. If you believe in them, I see no reason why you would hide them behind the phrase "duly noted." .I wonder how you think investors make decisions about what to invest in.
      • thumb
        Aug 29 2012: Rhona

        These conversations are going to be someone stating their opinion most of the time is conjecture. I don't want to waste time on conjecture.

        When state something it is not an opinion based on sound bytes. I have studied this subject. There are only a few on this board who have genuinely done their home work on this subject. When someone really wants to learn something about this or any other subject the denizen of this forum fall all over themselves to help. And I might add are good at it.

        But someone just wants to opine or "be right" what is the point?

        I will add but not argue with you:

        How come we have geometrically more specialties geometrically more GDP than when the industrial revolution started? This is a manifestation of Matt Ridley's video
        • Sep 1 2012: The basis for a decision about what to invest in is expected demand for the product. Demand for a product comes from........CONSUMER SURPLUS.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2012: Supply and Demand is a symbiotic relationship. One can not exist without the other. You can't (or shouldn't ) attempt to create a trickle up or a trickle down exclusively. What I would suggest is to develop business models that carefully monitors revenue from a middle balanced approach. (yes, business models, not govt models).

    Then I would take it a step further to allow these types of busnesses to proliferate. (wow...why would I assume a business like this would proliferate?) Because it is based on balance rather than explotation. How do we monitor when things tilt towards the exploitative side? Education, transparency, and truth in journalism. Once we recongize harmful macro economic business practices we simply no longer invest in companies with said practices.

    Business should have a strong innovation component. Marketing should be product driven where technology is not spoon fed to us through patent law. Note: These are my opinions and when I say "should" I really mean suggest.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2012: Craig I find it very refreshing that you lower yourself to work with conservatives. Since you have directly placed the blame for all things bad on conservatives please explain your position. Also if possible please explain the current economic model that the current administration is doing so well with 14 trillion dollars later in national debits. Can't blame that on anyone else.

    I am a independent and always speak up to bashing from both sides. You bashed now defend.

    Your attack on TED is also out of line. If you have suggestions please direct them to TED. Your TED story in your bio says you like TED for what it is now you want it to change. Why?

    • thumb
      Aug 27 2012: I ask the question because, I'm looking for the example of where this utopian economic model exist. I'll be the first to admit, it's a loaded question. None the less, where in the world is this model working?

      As far as the 14Trilion dollars deficit. Wouldn't it be far to look at the previous administrations spending record.

      Two Wars - never paid for (Republican lead) - billions spent monthly. Current Administration voted against the wars (Obama)
      Tax Cuts - Unfunded
      Medicare Prescription Coverage - Never Paid for
      Housing Crisis - (Mainly due the defunding/underfunding of the Justice Department by Republican Administrations)

      This added up to 9 Trillion before the current administration. Every effort to pay for some of these past expenditure has been blocked by the Congress. Therefore the deficit will continue to increase. We are now at around $15.5 Trillion in debt, the same trajectory the previous admin had us on with there same policies. Want to lower the deficit?

      End the two Wars you started.
      Pay for our Tax cuts ()
      Pay for the Medicare Prescription coverage
      Fund the Justice Department - (S&L Crisis under Reagan/Bush) , (SubPrime Loans - G.Bush)

      Where in the world does Trickle down economics work in the world? I think we call them third world nations.
      • thumb
        Aug 27 2012: It is convient to forget that a democratic congress voted to fund all of these things. The president cannot fund only congress. The current administration had majorities in both houses for the first two years and did squat all to either stop or reduce. Finger pointing is a dangerous game.
        • thumb
          Aug 27 2012: Come on, you can't have it both ways. No republicans had objections. Don't forget to answer my first question. Where is Supply side economics practiced in the world. Are there any first world countries?
  • Aug 26 2012: Maybe your setrs are wrong. Besides whenever a smart monkey communicates, it's agenda can be very different than the one it admits to advocating.
  • thumb
    Aug 23 2012: This quote from wikipedia:

    Economist Thomas Sowell has written that the actual path of money in a private enterprise economy is quite the opposite of that claimed by people who refer to the trickle-down theory. He noted that money invested in new business ventures is first paid out to employees, suppliers, and contractors. Only some time later, if the business is profitable, does money return to the business owners—but in the absence of a profit motive, which is reduced in the aggregate by a raise in marginal tax rates in the upper tiers, this activity does not occur. Sowell further has made the case that no economist has ever advocated a "trickle-down" theory of economics, which is rather a misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics.[9]