quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Trickle Down: I think I said this before but no one responded. What is the argument against trickle down? I hear people whine about how it doesn't work all the time but I have not yet seen the argument for why. Please enlighten me.
I've run out of satisfying ways to call you stupid, so let's leave it implicit for a while. In the words of Galbraith, 'if you feed enough oats to a horse, some will eventually trickle down to the sparrows'.

The problem with trickle-down is that it's economic voodoo. There's a reason it's no longer particularly fashionable, and that's because every case in which it's been practiced has revealed the plain and simple truth: reducing the tax burden of the wealthy results in a richer upper-class and not much else.

You want to grow the economy? Demand-side economics works splendidly. (Witness the unprecedented economic growth and stability of the American economy in the 40s through 80s, after which it lapsed into a boom-bust cycle.) Supply-side or laissez-faire or trickle-down or whatever we're supposed to call it now results in an unstable economy which tends to periodically ruin anyone without a serious wealth base.

Einstein: I was under the impression this guy did well for himself moneywise. Is this wrong?
Yes, it is. He didn't do particularly well for himself; he lived comfortably, but he didn't retire a millionaire. Why would he have?

Happiness: You can be weak and still be happy. I defined weak and strong in terms of being successful economically. Someone can flip burgers their whole life and still be the happiest person in the world. Obviously, if your happy no matter what then suddenly this whole argument becomes inconsequential.
'Weak' and 'strong' in economic terms are meaningless unless you treat them as purely economic definitions. Unless you're seriously prepared to defend Paris Hilton, a woman whose sole talent is having Hilton as a last name, as stronger than a vast majority of Americans.

The Mystic, how to become a millionaire: I noticed you said spending less than you make is a good way to become a millionaire. Really, most obscenely rich people borrow lots of extra cash to achieve this. This is why one day you'll hear about Donald Trump being bankrupt and the next day he'll be back on top. It's all about taking educated risks (intelligence and ambition).
No, not really: Donald Trump came from a remarkable amount of wealth. His parents could bail him out whenever he took an 'educated risk' and failed miserably, and did. And now he's got enough money that an 'educated risk' won't ruin him. The best way to get wealthy is to get born wealthy; if that weren't true, why is it that so few people have gotten so very rich? You can't defend the idea that the degree of his wealth and success makes Bill Gates some kind of tiny God; he's just a normal man who was born into circumstances that allowed him to get lucky.
(If he had been born earlier or poorer, his education wouldn't have allowed him to do what he did. If he had been born later, he wouldn't have been able to do anything exceptional in the market he now reigns over.)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lego:

Trickle-Down

---

AIGH!!!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

quote:

---

Originally written by The High King's Logomach:

What, exactly, makes economic gain the most important goal for all government?

---

Are you talking to me? I made it very clear that the economy is not a concern for the government at all. Protection is. I also think your forgetting that this is an economic discussion, not one on how to live a happy life. As for the word 'strength,' I don't use that word, I use the word strong. I use it so that I don't have to keep defining someone who has what it takes to be successful in every single one of my posts.

---

quote:

---

Here's the problem. The corporation leaders you are talking about aren't greedy enough! If they really wanted more money, rather than give themselves pay raises, they would expand. They would use the extra money to hire more people and extend their reach. It's when people get to a point in wealth where they lose ambition that the problems arise. Now I am finally begining to see why my system might not work. I assumed people would be greedier.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Here's the problem. The corporation leaders you are talking about aren't greedy enough! If they really wanted more money, rather than give themselves pay raises, they would expand. They would use the extra money to hire more people and extend their reach. It's when people get to a point in wealth where they lose ambition that the problems arise. Now I am finally begining to see why my system might not work. I assumed people would be greedier.

---

quote:

---

Alorael, whose argument against trickle-down economics is that it gives exactly what it says: a trickle. As Alec says, helping the rich to help the poor indirectly seems backwards. Why not help the poor to give them more purchasing power so the companies who sell products indirectly benefit? What's wrong with trickle-up?

---