June 2, 2008

Mowen, explain the "High gas prices prove trickle-down economics works"

You've written in a few goofy off-topic comments putting forth your comically flawed assertion that sky-high gas prices and the real economic strains they are causing all of us is therefor proof that "trickle-down" economics works. (!)

Please explain that to people here, would you?

You see soaring gas prices imposing real hardships on millions of average Americans and forcing them to do without. You see these prices dealing a huge blow to businesses, some of which are suffering and failing. You see the profits from these all-time high oil prices flowing to oil conglomerates and their billionaire executives.

And you realize that these record profits ultimately flow to the very middle-east governments who have, are, and will continue to support al Queda and other terrorist organizations sworn to kill our troops and Americans. And you recognize that all of this is accompanied by record-breaking profit taking by big oil.

So tell us again how this is proof-positive that trickle-down economics works like a charm.

You wrote:

As we can see, gas prices are having a serious impact on our economy. People are spending an additional $10.00 - $25.00 per week on gas.

This is affecting all segments of the economy, as these additional dollars spent on gas, are not being spent elsewhere.

Sounds as though, "Trickle Down Economics" is not as 'voodoo economics' as we thought.

You have argued for a long time that "Trickle Down Economics" is foolishness.

Does it not stand to reason that when money is sucked out of the economy to one segment (gas) and it negatively affects most every other segment, this is a 'trickle down effect?'

...less money, trickles down to negatively affect the entire economy.

The reverse also would then be true,

...more money in the economy, whether through additional hours on a paycheck, winning the lottery, or, say - through a income tax reduction - would stimulate most aspects of the economy?

Sounds quite reasonable, no?

Wow, that dang Reagan was smarter than most thought!

Don't feel bad TID, it took a lot opf people 25+ years to understand this concept.

I hate to break it to you Jimbo, but Reagan was an amiable dunce, and it takes people all of about 2 seconds to understand the concept behind "trickle-down" economics.

It doesn't take a genius to realize this is a semi-clever way to state that, "If you rig the system to funnel more wealth to the already wealthy, then the rest of you will all benefit handsomely. Trust us."

It's like Biff Riprock III, son of the local coal mine owner, sauntering up to you in a bar and telling you that if you hand over your entire paycheck to him, it would be good for the company, and therefore good for you.. and what the heck, good for everyone! (why not?), the benefits to be seen, well, sometime later on.

...and you actually believe this.

You'll end up dead broke and maybe, just maybe, Biff might hire you (for peanuts,... after all, you're broke) to wax his Mercedes. Well there ya go! Trickle-down works!

Not too complicated. But now you're arguing that billionaires, and the Sultans and Princes of hard-line Islamic dictatorships in the Mid-east sucking even more billions and billions out of the pockets of businesses and families across the country, thus making them even more obscenely wealthy, that then the opposite must be true.

Only your version of "opposite" happens to still feature making the rich even richer. Quite a trick. You then seem to argue that by giving those already worth hundreds of millions of dollars even more breaks and privileges and government welfare, than it will benefit us peons (the other 98% of the population) because just like they suck the money out of our economy and into their off-shore bank accounts, they can then funnel it back in to Joe Sixpack's checking account at the credit union. Yeah. Maybe if Joe happens to work building yachts or private jets or vacation homes in the Caribbean or is in the party planning business. Or maybe Joe works for a Wall Street firm that makes billions moving money back and forth and producing nothing, who knows?

What a beauty of a concept there Jim. But not too complex I'm afraid. It's simple and obvious. Whatever makes the already very wealthy far more wealthy is good, and anything that provides economic benefits across the broader economic spectrum is bad.

When the rich get richer, the rest of us reap the benefits. This is the supposedly difficult to understand concept of trickle-down. Again, not too difficult to grasp, even though it flies in the face of centuries of experience.

But in your new improved version, when the rich get many times richer and the rest of us suffer, this proves trickle-down works too.

But go ahead and take it from there Jim. Tell us how it works. Tell us all how great being trickled on really is and how we should all be grateful to have our tax dollars essentially transferred into corporate pockets while our gas dollars end up going to pay for a solid gold sink in some Saudi prince's Gulfstream V and to buy arms munitions and provide training for al Queda.

We'll await your convincing explanation. We all need some comic relief.

(note to readers, ya gotta hear this. It's priceless.)


At 6/02/2008 7:22 AM, Anonymous tiger woods said...

Thanks for the post TID. You posted my comments and I appreciate this.

If you cannot appreciate that MORE money trickles through the economy in a positive manner, and LESS money trickles through the economy in a manner that negatively affects the economy (as we all know, less is not as good as more),

If you cannot appreciate this, then I cannot help you - and I certainly have no desire to debate this with you on your site - as when I prove the point (and thus you, foolish), you will just censor the post (as you are so expert at).

You are more than welcome to go to a nuetral site for this discussion, where my comments will have an equal chance.

Thanks though!

At 6/02/2008 6:58 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Aw crap... you ran with your tail between your legs.

And here I was looking forward to you explaining your cock-eyed theory in front of us all.

Give money to the rich, the rest suffer, and this is reverse proof of trickle down.

Give money to the rich, and the rest supposedly benefit, and this too is proof.

As I said, it's a bunch of garbage gussied up as an excuse and rationalization to skew things more towards the already wealthy, and as has been shown over and over and over, no matter what the results, whether the economy tanks or barely registers any progress at all, fools like yourself attribute it to the success of "trickle-down" economics.

It's a transparently false notion, and in all the decades it's been tried and advocated for, it's still never been accepted as a workable economic theory.

As a matter of fact, it's been instituted for decades now, and our economy is sliding into the crapper, real income has fallen for the vast majority of Americans while income has grown at record rates for the very wealthiest.

And you have the gall to ask anyone to believe that this crap is a success?

I'm not sure America can stand too much more of your brand of economic "success."

Pity you lack the convinction to lay out your goofy propositions here where they could be seen and responded to by others who might not agree.

At 6/04/2008 10:47 PM, Anonymous nooncat said...

Galbraith described the trickle-down theory as "the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."

Where do the wealthy get their wealth? Think about it. Wealth doesn't trickle down. Wealth trickles up.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home