The top 1% spend only a tiny fraction of their incomes. Think of how much of their yearly income a multi-millionaire or billionaire spends. So the answer is generally no, it doesn't increase demand, and if it does its by a tiny amount. If you want more jobs its waayyyy better to give tax cuts to the poor and middle class. This is what all the academic studies on this issue have shown.
People keep saying that America thinks trump won. Is there a link to polls on this? That scares the shit out of me.
If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.
It's an oversimplification to demonstrate the underlying point.
There's a triumvirate that's in balance. Demand, driven by consumption power, production, and affordability. If you don't change affordability (which ties directly to profit margins), then the only way increasing production can increase consumption is if you weren't already meeting the market demand. So the demand was there, without the additional investment required, so the investment didn't actually do anything.
And if you ARE meeting that demand before, then boosting production leaves you a bunch of unsellable product. Which means you can monkey with affordability to unload it, by dropping your price point, which doesn't actually make you significantly more money in most cases, because your profit margins shrink as well. Selling 30 pairs of sneakers for $50, when it costs you $10 a pair to manufacture, is "better" than selling 200 pairs of the same sneakers at $15/pair.
If, however, you boost demand directly, by ensuring consumers have more money to spend, that demand encourages greater production to meet that demand, naturally. You create actual long-term jobs, because demand has been increased, and without having to drop price points to encourage more buyers, so the business owner makes more money, too. You end up selling those 200 pairs of sneakers for $50 each.
Sitting New Jersey Governor and voted most-slappable-stooge, Chris Christie, was just on MSNBC and just said "If Trump doesn't attend the next two debates, he will still win."
While I don't like to gossipcraft... it sure sounds like a setup to me! ^_^
Again no. Those consumers only have so much money. If they buy her brownies or cookies, then they will have less to spend on what other people sell. So any rise in employment brought about by Sally employing people is met by an equal fall in employment by sally's competitors.
I don't know why you keep denying reality.
That is the case, and from the people I've spoken to irl, I get the impression it's vote for Hillary! because she's not Trump. That's not to say she's wrong in what she proposes, but I seriously doubt that if Obama couldn't get it done, whether he wanted to or not, that she could, whether she wants to as well. It's a shot in the dark, a dive into the same cesspool people have been for decades, and I seriously think people are ready for this show to end.
Buying more ingredients doesn't create more people who want brownies. That's not how markets work.
If you mean she could spend it on better ingredients, sure, but now you run into the question of whether 50 people will pay more for those brownies, because if they won't, you're losing money.
You're literally changing the example. I clearly stated that she'd tried making more than 50 brownies in the past, and was never able to sell more than 50. You don't get to just change the example, and then pretend you've made a point.
You're making arguments that literally no reasonable economist would support. They don't make sense on any level. Trickle-down economic theory has been tried, and it does not work. Nothing "trickles down".
Last edited by Endus; 2016-09-27 at 05:11 AM.
Trump was doing good in the first 20 mins, then it was just an hour of watching Hillary baiting Trump into saying some stupid shit and get him to either go back and correct it or just beating him using his own words that he said on the debate and the ones he said earlier in his campaign. I dont trust Clinton either, but she does have experience, and she used it well.
I am not saying to vote for trump, I do not support him. But attacking him for not paying taxes is the most ridiculous thing to do. Neither Clinton nor Trump are going to make any progress with taxes and corporate loopholes since they are both on the side of corporations.