Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
15
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Pangean View Post
    You know what the definition of insanity is.
    insanity
    [in-san-i-tee]
    noun, plural insanities.

    1. the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.
    Synonyms: dementia, lunacy, madness, craziness, mania, aberration.

    2. Law. such unsoundness of mind as frees one from legal responsibility, as for committing a crime, or as signals one's lack of legal capacity, as for entering into a contractual agreement.

    3. Psychiatry. (formerly) psychosis.

    4. extreme foolishness; folly; senselessness; foolhardiness:
    "Trying to drive through that traffic would be pure insanity."
    a foolish or senseless action, policy, statement, etc.:
    "We've heard decades of insanities in our political discourse."
    The night is dark and full of terrors...

  2. #82
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Pangean View Post
    You know what the definition of insanity is.
    well some of the others they interviewed where well people who were either not right in the head or just dumb....one of them walked up to people and screamed at them that they were a socialist for voting against walker when they told them.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  3. #83
    Legendary!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    On the road to my inevitable death.
    Posts
    6,362
    Quote Originally Posted by alexw View Post
    So if more money is saved then that means there is less money being spent so consumption must fall (some of the increased savings is however can be used to drive up the number of loans to consumers so they consume more using debt instead of income).
    But money being loaned out is spent. They are spend paying companies for equipment - who then pay their workers. They are spent paying the workers of the borrower, the utilities bill ... etc.
    Last edited by SodiumChloride; 2016-05-02 at 07:51 AM.
    Internet forums are more for circlejerking (patting each other on the back) than actual discussion (exchange and analysis of information and points of view). Took me long enough to realise ...

  4. #84
    I am Murloc! Pangean's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Laurasia
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by namelessone View Post
    insanity
    [in-san-i-tee]
    noun, plural insanities.

    1. the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.
    Synonyms: dementia, lunacy, madness, craziness, mania, aberration.

    2. Law. such unsoundness of mind as frees one from legal responsibility, as for committing a crime, or as signals one's lack of legal capacity, as for entering into a contractual agreement.

    3. Psychiatry. (formerly) psychosis.

    4. extreme foolishness; folly; senselessness; foolhardiness:
    "Trying to drive through that traffic would be pure insanity."
    a foolish or senseless action, policy, statement, etc.:
    "We've heard decades of insanities in our political discourse."
    Nah doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
    What are we gonna do now? Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
    'Cause they're working for the clampdown
    They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
    When we're working for the clampdown
    We will teach our twisted speech To the young believers
    We will train our blue-eyed men To be young believers

  5. #85
    Legendary!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    On the road to my inevitable death.
    Posts
    6,362
    Quote Originally Posted by The Batman View Post
    Loans let people use other people's money that they eventually have to pay back. That's a voodoo economics. Sure, loans have their place, but pretending that letting the rich have all the money and then pretending that them loaning out that money somehow makes things better is... lol.
    The point is, the money stays in circulation. It's better than the rich building massive piggy banks like Scourge McDuck where all the money sits unused.
    Internet forums are more for circlejerking (patting each other on the back) than actual discussion (exchange and analysis of information and points of view). Took me long enough to realise ...

  6. #86
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by SodiumChloride View Post
    The point is, the money stays in circulation. It's better than the rich building massive piggy banks like Scourge McDuck where all the money sits unused.
    Money ACTUALLY being earned by people and actually being in circulation is better than everyone running around with debts and circulating debt.

    As I said, loans have their place, but people seem to have taken it so far that they think that loans can take the place of enhanced income.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  7. #87
    whats trickling from above ain't money... or rain.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by SodiumChloride View Post
    The point is, the money stays in circulation. It's better than the rich building massive piggy banks like Scourge McDuck where all the money sits unused.
    It's certainly better than building money vaults ala Scourge McDuck, but not by much. How much of the money deposited into banks is being used? Compare that ratio with the spending ratio of your average non-rich Joe and you'll find that the latter spends his money more effectively, stimulating the economy even more.

    Poor people spend more of their money than the rich do, which is why trickle down economics doesn't work as well as the other methods, e.g. Keynesian economics.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  9. #89
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Arewn View Post
    That's why it became accepted. It sounds great in theory, and was heavily encouraged by its proponents during a depression.
    To be more precise, it was a smoke screen, a pretext. During Reagans presidency the various lobbyists pushed hard for tax cuts etc. - but it's hard to outright sell "hey, dear american citizens, we're going to siphon money from you to those rich interest groups here, because they're, ummm, very convincing (*cha-ching!*), kthxbye!" to your voters. They needed a way to sell this to the normal citizens - and thus, the "trickle down" myth was born. It was never a "theory", strictly speaking. It was, and is, spin.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Rurts View Post
    To be more precise, it was a smoke screen, a pretext. During Reagans presidency the various lobbyists pushed hard for tax cuts etc. - but it's hard to outright sell "hey, dear american citizens, we're going to siphon money from you to those rich interest groups here, because they're, ummm, very convincing (*cha-ching!*), kthxbye!" to your voters. They needed a way to sell this to the normal citizens - and thus, the "trickle down" myth was born. It was never a "theory", strictly speaking. It was, and is, spin.
    Dude, what? Trickle-down economics came from witnessing economic miracles in Japan, Brazil, China, and South Korea from the 1960s-1980s. The idea was that if more money was freed up by increasing national savings rates, which was achieved by increasing the rich households share of the national wealth "pie", then more investment would result because of the accounting definition where Savings = Investment.

    The issue is that the US doesn't lack credit or funding for investment projects, but these projects are blocked for political reasons. The fact that it doesn't work here isn't what ought to piss you off about the whole endeavor (because it does work elsewhere,) the thing which ought to piss you off is that people who are trained economists somehow mistook the United States for an impoverished backwater country which can't keep the lights running.

    Side note: Pretty sure this thread qualifies as nation-bashing.
    Last edited by Nadiru; 2016-05-02 at 10:33 AM.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Spraxle View Post
    It's amazing... Wait no it feels the same as usual. The reality for me as someone living in Kansas is that nothing has changed. Or appears to have changed. The biggest issue is that the state wouldn't expand Medicaid/Medicare under the ACA ('Obamacare'). This directly impacts me in several drastic ways. That and the crazy over the top religious based stuff that gets passed by our government in the state. The majority of people who live in Kansas are good people who aren't full of hate and bigotry, but our elected officials are hell bent on pushing that image. What with the two bathroom bills, the 'Religious Freedom in Schools' bill (that is law and goes into effect July 1), and the like. But these bills don't represent what the people of the state want.

    Elections this fall in Kansas will be really interesting to watch as a lot of the people in power now are at risk of getting dethroned just because the populace is sick of being a joke because of them. We have a movement in state to remove Brownback that would catch more steam if his power base in the House and Senate were cut down in the fall.
    eh no offence but you sound like a typical Johnson county person. he won with 63% of the vote. 800,000 out of 2.9 million people in Kansas voted. he wasnt exactly hiding who or what he was as a govenor. :P
    Last edited by KOMO1211; 2016-05-02 at 11:11 AM.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Nadiru View Post
    Dude, what? Trickle-down economics came from witnessing economic miracles in Japan, Brazil, China, and South Korea from the 1960s-1980s. The idea was that if more money was freed up by increasing national savings rates, which was achieved by increasing the rich households share of the national wealth "pie", then more investment would result because of the accounting definition where Savings = Investment.

    The issue is that the US doesn't lack credit or funding for investment projects, but these projects are blocked for political reasons. The fact that it doesn't work here isn't what ought to piss you off about the whole endeavor (because it does work elsewhere,) the thing which ought to piss you off is that people who are trained economists somehow mistook the United States for an impoverished backwater country which can't keep the lights running.

    Side note: Pretty sure this thread qualifies as nation-bashing.
    The countries you mentioned weren't the apex economies of the world. They have external demand for their goods. Thinking economic policies that work there would work in the apex economy of the world is stupid. The US largely drove their demand. They also weren't developed countries in the 60s. So those countries' version of trickle down wasn't actually trickle down. As far as the global economy is concerned, they're still helping the poor which drives demand. Realize that our country's version of trickle down doesn't have some better off economy exporting jobs here that's also buying our goods.

  13. #93
    Deleted
    I am sure that they are trickling down something on the poor people

  14. #94
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    two pages in and this thread is gold

  15. #95
    Stealthed Defender unbound's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    All that moves is easily heard in the void.
    Posts
    6,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullettime View Post
    An economic concept that depends on generosity is doomed to fail. I have no idea how trickle down economics became an accepted practice to begin with. It's one of those things that sounds great in theory but then you remember humans are greedy malicious assholes.....
    Here is a pretty good wiki explaining the primary modern history of supply side economics as well as the issues associated with a pure focus on supply side economics - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supply_side_economics

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Sydänyö View Post
    Falling velocity of money is a poor economic concept in the first place and hardly justification for massive wealth redistribution and increased public spending.

  17. #97
    The Insane Acidbaron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    18,230
    The sad reality is that trickle down is not even beneficial for those who benefit from it short term such as big business and people with money. Their interest, their profit depends on the economy as a whole.

    The less money people have the less get spend, therefor every wheel in the machine we call the economy starts to slow down. Logistics, manufacturing, sales. Their money on the banks bring up less and less, their money in stocks bring up less and less. The long game for those with wealth is not keeping the wealth in one place.

    While it is simple economics not everyone accepts this. However the need for people, especially americans to act as if they are millionares continues to mind boggle me. Yes let's deny a better place for your offspring at the remote chance you mind become rich, why have social security at all? Let all just get rid of it and replace it with a lottery, 10 people in a million get everything all the rest get nothing.

  18. #98
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Detroit is a natural result of an economy entrenched in one industry, and globalization

    Kansas is a result of actively experimenting.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    Detroit is a natural result of an economy entrenched in one industry, and globalization

    Kansas is a result of actively experimenting.
    Kansas is better off than Detroit, I also find it amusing that you apparently are so bright that you can determine the individual economic factors and the influence they have. That's pretty inpressive

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by satimy View Post
    Kansas is better off than Detroit, I also find it amusing that you apparently are so bright that you can determine the individual economic factors and the influence they have. That's pretty inpressive
    For a clearer picture here: Detroit avg household income ~25k. Kansas ~60k.

    To be fair, Kansas didn't have essentially a total collapse in it's main product, although that could be coming.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •