Rahm and his business

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

trickle down hasn’t worked, if by ‘worked’, you mean eliminated poverty. Has welfare ( trickle up) eliminated poverty? Have the most liberal places, like CT, eliminated poverty? Been to Hartford or Bridgeport lately?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by spence

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

trickle down hasn’t worked, if by ‘worked’, you mean eliminated poverty. Has welfare ( trickle up) eliminated poverty? Have the most liberal places, like CT, eliminated poverty? Been to Hartford or Bridgeport lately?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if the two opposite viewpoints don't work, we should do nothing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So if the two opposite viewpoints don't work, we should do nothing.

And once again, you are acting like I said something, which I never even came close to saying. I have never come close to saying "do nothing". Why do you do this so frequently?

So, what should we do? Well, at the moment, unemployment is very low, and black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment are at all time lows, I think. What got us here? A Republican president, many years of a Republican congress, and tax cuts.

So I say, let's stick with what worked.

If Hilary had won, and the liberals ran Congress, and their massive tax hikes resulted in this low unemployment, I would be honest enough to admit that it worked. I'm willing to bet everything I own, that you and Spence will never do the same.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And once again, you are acting like I said something, which I never even came close to saying. I have never come close to saying "do nothing". Why do you do this so frequently?

So, what should we do? Well, at the moment, unemployment is very low, and black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment are at all time lows, I think. What got us here? A Republican president, many years of a Republican congress, and tax cuts.

So I say, let's stick with what worked.

If Hilary had won, and the liberals ran Congress, and their massive tax hikes resulted in this low unemployment, I would be honest enough to admit that it worked. I'm willing to bet everything I own, that you and Spence will never do the same.

But what have the Republican President and Congress done for Hartford or Bridgeport? After many years something should have happened.

Is the low unemployment real, lets not forget trumps opinion on that prior to the election. How has the data collection or compilation changed since he was elected?
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the Census household survey, the biggest contribution to the drop in the unemployment rate wasn't people getting jobs — that survey registered a gain of just 3,000 in April. It's due mainly to the fact that 410,000 dropped out of the labor force — and no longer count as unemployed.

If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.

The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.

The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.

The population not in the labor force — they don't have jobs and aren't looking — has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.

Think about it this way. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in December 2000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be 3.9%. It would be 10%!

Yes, many who've left the labor force over the past 18 years are baby boomers entering retirement. But that doesn't come close to explaining the massive increase in labor dropouts.

For example, the labor force participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 78% in December 2000. It's just 71% today. For those 25-34 years old, the rate declined from 85% to 83%.

In contrast, among those 55 and older, the participation rate increased — going from 33% in December 2000 to 40% now.

Clearly, there are still millions of potential workers sitting on the sidelines.

As to black and hispanic unemployment, I thought a rising tide lifts all ships. Both those rates still have the same relationship to white unemployment that they did before trump, double. Nothing surprising or wonderful there.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

That is not the real question. That is the real trick. You're either intentionally trying to mislead for political reasons, or you're just plain uninformed.

From Forbes:

"Our language is loaded with phrases that lead people into false beliefs and harmful actions, but the one I would nominate as the worst and most destructive of all is 'trickle-down economics.'
It was devised by Democrats in the 1980s as a way to attack President Reagan’s economic policy combination of tax rate cuts and some relaxation of federal regulations. They needed a catchy, easy-to-remember zinger to fire at Reagan; a line that would keep their voting base angry."
The full article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel.../#69a611995891

The whole notion of "trickle down economics" is a myth intended to use the usual political trick of defining an opponent with a dishonest (a lie) characterization. The theory never existed.

From another article: https://www.nccivitas.org/2014/myth-trickle-economics/

"As economist Thomas Sowell noted in his book Basic Economics, 'Trickle down has been a characterization and rejection of what somebody else supposedly believed.' But 'no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories . . .Here the President [Obama] and like-minded progressive statists employ an avoidance tactic to evade confronting the actual arguments presented by those who advocate for lower tax rates and less government interference as ways to grow the economy. Such advocates clearly do not make their case by seeking a transfer of existing wealth to high-income earners and business owners (i.e. “give more to those who have the most”). Rather, they emphasize the creation of additional wealth and jobs when entrepreneurs are not hampered by heavy regulation and discouraged by steep taxes,' Sowell writes."

More to the point: "As almost any entrepreneur – big or small – can tell you, when a business investment is made it is the workers who get paid first. Profits and capital gains only come later. For instance, when a new restaurant opens up, construction workers and interior designers get paid for building or renovating the space. Companies make money providing the furnishings and kitchen equipment. The wait staff, cooks and cleaning crew receive regular paychecks for doing their work. Furthermore, the food and beverage suppliers likewise get paid. Only later, if the restaurant is successful, do the owners see a return on their investment.
Even hugely successful corporations can often take years to break even. For instance, Amazon began in 1995 but didn’t turn its first profit until six years later after sustaining billions in losses. All that time, its workers and suppliers kept collecting checks.
As Sowell put it, 'In short, the sequence of payments is directly opposite of what is assumed by those who talk about a ‘trickle down’ theory. The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all.'”

So, the good policy is similar to what Trump did.