- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Liberal Misunderstanding of "trickle down economics"
Posted on 12/1/16 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 4:33 pm
I seem to recall over the course of the campaign that many Democrats, Hillary included, tried to demonize the concept of trickle down economics. I'm starting to think that the majority of them are not seeing the whole picture, or more likely, don't understand it. Trickle down economics doesn't really apply to a company, outside of the fact that increased profits increase the number of jobs and/or opportunities for advancement. Trickle down economics is on full display with this Carrier deal and yet liberals are still struggling to see the benefit. Saving 1100 jobs saves 1100 tax payers, that part is obvious. What liberals fail to see is that it also saves 1100 CONSUMERS. The trickle down effect from that alone is far greater than tax breaks and incentives. How many additional jobs are saved by the saving of these 1100 and their spending power? How many service jobs are saved by keeping the manufacturing plant open? These plants require contractors to operate as well, not just the people they employ on paper. You keep Joe Blow's hydraulics in business, you keep Jane Doe's cleaning service in business. THIS is trickle down economics. This is benefit of corporate incentives.
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 4:34 pm
10
Posted on 12/1/16 at 4:34 pm to ibleedprplngld
Removing the wall of text as it is insensitive and also in Latin which I don't understand and thus am not sure if it is supportive of Hillary.
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 4:35 pm to FooManChoo
Lol
Posted on 12/1/16 at 4:36 pm to ibleedprplngld
Dems love them some trickle down.
They just call it by another name,
Keynesian economics.
They just call it by another name,
Keynesian economics.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 4:38 pm to ibleedprplngld
Libs wouldn't know the truth if it trickled down their faces
Posted on 12/1/16 at 4:47 pm to ibleedprplngld
And what will be the impact of the federal government forcing higher expenses than necessary at companies all around the country? How will our businesses compete globally? What sort of trade policies will be required to protect our weighted-down corporations from closing up shop? How many jobs are we willing to put in jeopardy to save 1000?
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:05 pm to ibleedprplngld
You could have just said "liberal misunderstanding of economics".
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:54 pm to Korkstand
Where do expect these additional costs to come from? Taxes? No, pretty sure that's part of the package. COB? Nah. Prices? Lowering the COB generally results in lower and stable prices, so no. Sales? Supply and demand, lost costs usually equal lower prices, lower prices equal higher demand, so that's out too. Where exactly do you expect these higher expenses to come from? No matter what policies are imposed, businesses will do what is best for the business. Obviously this deal was in the best interest of Carrier.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:56 pm to ibleedprplngld
Yeah, that's not really trickle down economics.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 6:15 pm to Korkstand
He triggered 
Posted on 12/2/16 at 5:47 am to ibleedprplngld
Have you told Keynes this yet? I'm sure he never thought about that at all!
Posted on 12/2/16 at 5:52 am to ibleedprplngld
What is ironic is that the left will submit that welfare is good because the money obtained from welfare is used to buy things and therefore, spur the economy.
But they will reverse their view when it comes to trickle down, insisting that it doesn't work?
But they will reverse their view when it comes to trickle down, insisting that it doesn't work?
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 6:06 am
Posted on 12/2/16 at 5:57 am to Korkstand
quote:
And what will be the impact of the federal government forcing higher expenses than necessary at companies all around the country? How will our businesses compete globally? What sort of trade policies will be required to protect our weighted-down corporations from closing up shop? How many jobs are we willing to put in jeopardy to save 1000?
What the actual frick are you babbling about?
Posted on 12/2/16 at 6:40 am to ibleedprplngld
quote:
Liberal
quote:
economics
these 2 words should never be used together
Posted on 12/2/16 at 9:54 am to ibleedprplngld
quote:
Where do expect these additional costs to come from?
quote:What? I'm talking about the very direct expense of paying these American workers higher wages than the Mexican wages Carrier was planning on paying.
Where exactly do you expect these higher expenses to come from?
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:03 am to gthog61
quote:Look, Carrier was going to cut costs by moving some operations to Mexico, right? They were going to save a ton on labor costs. Trump changed their parameters so that move was no longer their best option.
What the actual frick are you babbling about?
What was going to happen was Carrier would reduce their operating costs, resulting in more profit, which would have presumably been invested in other job-creating activities. That's "trick down", isn't it?
Instead, Trump has seemingly strong-armed trickle-down theory into working immediately. And in the process he kept Carrier's operating costs higher than they would be in a free market.
My question is, what is going to happen if this becomes a habit? Don't you think there will be consequences to keeping the operating costs of American businesses higher than they need to be?
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:10 am to ibleedprplngld
quote:And just a quick FYI... what you are describing is not "trickle-down economics". This is simply an economy.
Trickle down economics is on full display with this Carrier deal and yet liberals are still struggling to see the benefit. Saving 1100 jobs saves 1100 tax payers, that part is obvious. What liberals fail to see is that it also saves 1100 CONSUMERS. The trickle down effect from that alone is far greater than tax breaks and incentives. How many additional jobs are saved by the saving of these 1100 and their spending power? How many service jobs are saved by keeping the manufacturing plant open? These plants require contractors to operate as well, not just the people they employ on paper. You keep Joe Blow's hydraulics in business, you keep Jane Doe's cleaning service in business. THIS is trickle down economics. This is benefit of corporate incentives.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News