Originally posted by BlueAjah
Trickle down economics works.
The trouble is, our current system has a major hole in the pipelines. It is no secret that what should be trickling down to American citizens is going overseas. THAT is the problem. The solution is not to tax the rich more. The wealthy people and companies are the ones who are going to hire. We just need to find a way to encourage them to hire Americans.
Our country has become ridiculously dependent on foreign countries. Our country has deteriorated into a dependent that does not know how to fend for itself, and would fall apart if other countries, especially China, decided to pull the plug on us. Right now, China could start charging anything they want for most items used in manufacturing, as well as manufactured goods, and we would be stuck paying it, because there is no way to get it "Made in the USA".
Trickle down works just fine - if you trickle down to where it belongs - here in the USA, to our people who need jobs.
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by MystikMushroom
They have even made documentaries about googles business model,and compared it to walmarts, then talked about the difference and the way employees at google are so much happier than at walmart. Which is why their productivity is so high.
I know a couple of people that basically told me the same, saying in effect "I would die , kill, sacrifice my first born etc.." to work for google. It is the model all should follow IMHO. But most won't, as their blind greed overpwers any and all evidence to the contrary about productivity.
Which is why I suggested a model that would force them to be more worker friendly, it is the only way I can see that will coerce business owners into paying better, besides raising the minimum wage constantly to keep up with inflation. Which isn't the same, as it is less dependent on the success of the company, and forces many small businesses that can't afford it to comply, which closes their doors.
Originally posted by antonia
In all the BS being spouted here we are missing a single important point: If there are no people who can afford a product then it can not be sold. This is the problem. Demand is what creates jobs, if there is no demand because the people are too poor then you have no jobs.
Originally posted by artnut
Can someone please define "rich"? Is it someone who has made a million over the years? Is it someone making 200k a year? I am just seeing a disconnect somewhere because different numbers are thrown around, and they mean different things to different classes.
Originally posted by schuyler
You ever been offered a job by a poor man? Just sayin....
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
If a company makes over a million in profits a year, reguardless of size, their payroll should be directly tied to how much money they make, either in a hourly pay rate, or quarterly or yearly bonuses, to make up the difference.
For example, if a cmpany makes a million in profits in a year, and only paid out, $100,000 in payroll they should be reuired to pay bonuses to their employees of $400,000. Thus half the money would go to those actually making the money for the company( the workers) and the other half would go to the owner(s). Thus everyone is taken care of, and everyone gets to profit from the hard work involved in making the company profittable.
Originally posted by Mishmashum
Originally posted by beezzer
So you want wealth redistribution. You want to punish success and reward people who have done nothing to earn it.
I fully grasp your concept, sir. I just disagree with it.
You poor confused rabbit.
It's not wealth redistribution.
It's wealth reacquisition.
For it to be redistribution the obscenely wealthy (talking billionaires--not some pathetic multi-millionaire) would have had to "earn" or "produce" the wealth they possess.
A third generation Walton hardly worked hard to earn their lot in life.
Also ... rabbit stew is very tasty.
*rubs his stomach*
According to Forbes, there are 403 billionaires in the US, as of March 2010.
This Forbes 2011 400 list gives the top 400 details :
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by MsAphrodite
Not really a problem with Google or their business, just another illustration of what is wrong with the investing culture of the Country.
Google: Hey we made a profit.
Investors: But you didn't make as large of one we thought you could
Google: But we do have opportunities opening up in the near future.
Investors: But you still didn't make what we thought you should.
Google: But we still made money, and have an eye to make more.
Investors: Well maybe if you cut some costs (fire some people or outsource to China or India) we will consider backing you again, you let us down. And now it is time to prove yourself.
Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by Maxmars
wealth "reaquisition"? Sounds like theft to me. How dare anyone win at the game. Relabeling with fancy "economic" labels obscure the basics.
Gov't is a corporation just like the rest. Vote in their board of directors CEOs, so on just like the rest. Trouble is no oversite for the gov't. Unless you count "we The People"....who's personal agendas are just as bought and paid for as any politician's.
The left don't really want to tax the wealthy, it's a lie! If they did, they'd go after the "Foundations", the trust's, all the buried exemptions that keep the super-wealthy untouched.
The evidence is all around us, the unemployed, the massive welfare growth.
Give me Romney, at least there's an a chance of change. Four more Obama years and we will grid-lock into oblivion.
Originally posted by slatibartfast
Trickle-down story: As a kid I sold vinyl bumperstickers at Dead shows designed using legal, non copyrighted materials. First batch cost us $100 for 400 stickers, we sold them on our own for a buck a piece and made a tidy profit very quickly. Next batch (because the sticker was selling well) we bumped it up to 1000 for $200 and I had a couple of younger guys offer to buy 100 for $50 so they could go out and sell them. Totally did that and still sold lots for a buck.
Next year it was $1000 for 10,000 stickers (template, set up cost/labor materials get cheaper the more you buy...). We even got permits for some of the East Coast cities (Usually a phone call and about $30 at City Hall-same as the fine if you ain't got a permit...) Typical pyramid sales concept that paid for lots of tickets, hotels and amenities. Cash, cash, cash. Everybody wins.
Life was so simple then... Where did we go wrong...
Originally posted by ABNARTY
Just an observation:
This thread is chuck full of those mocking the OP with his 6 hours of research on trickle down. "That it is not enough, snark-snark, economics are complex, tisk-tisk."
Well then, what is the real answer? Last time I checked (disclaimer: I am far from an expert) there is no unified law of economics. No guaranteed method to make it all work like a Swiss watch.
There have been plenty of business owners claiming they create jobs and plenty of job holders claiming they are simply selling the employer their time/effort/skills. One without the other is pretty pointless (businesses of one person asides) and even more ridiculous without customers who can pay for what that business has to offer. Plenty of haters against the government, who by the way provides an environment for a business and market to do their things. Granted they can screw it up just like any of the other players in this dance.
That sounds HIGHLY interdependent to the non-economic PHD candidate. Take out one element and the whole thing falls apart.
Sounds like one of those things that requires a dynamic balance. No moral high ground anywhere. Although it surely can be taken advantage of by any of the elements thus screwing over the balance.
So what is the answer? I ask you, most esteemed contributing members to this thread who write two sentences highlighting everybody else is jacked up or stupid or a communist or a an idiot....