Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the late 1980s and popular reporting on economics over more than the last twenty years emphasize the importance of Hayak-Freedman neo-liberal economic policies--including low tax burdens, hence, limited opportunity for trickle-up redistributive policies. Ummm The richest parts of the United States are those that have invested the most in public services--of all kinds. New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, et cetera are all high-tax high-service states. We are certainly getting *something* out of our investments in roads, bridges, harbors, education, research and development, and so forth... Brad DeLong I'll have more to say, but about PA: What? The argument in the newspapers here is how low our taxes are compared to the surrounding states (except Del and WV) and all the services we lost during the current budget crunch. Our roads are horrible, 75% of the bridges are just at their rated weight limits with (not a small percentage, 35%?) needing complete replacement, the state is very low in funding higher education (something that does not bother me), even with subsidies we are still losing businesses. Kevin T. - VRWC Gotta work ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the late 1980s and popular reporting on economics over more than the last twenty years emphasize the importance of Hayak-Freedman neo-liberal economic policies--including low tax burdens, hence, limited opportunity for trickle-up redistributive policies. Ummm The richest parts of the United States are those that have invested the most in public services--of all kinds. New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, et cetera are all high-tax high-service states. We are certainly getting *something* out of our investments in roads, bridges, harbors, education, research and development, and so forth... Brad DeLong I'll have more to say, but about PA: What? The argument in the newspapers here is how low our taxes are compared to the surrounding states (except Del and WV) and all the services we lost during the current budget crunch. Our roads are horrible, 75% of the bridges are just at their rated weight limits with (not a small percentage, 35%?) needing complete replacement, the state is very low in funding higher education (something that does not bother me), even with subsidies we are still losing businesses. All I have for comparison first hand is California, Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada. I like the geography where I live. But the economies in Texas and Nevada and the benifit of living in a No Tax State are so much better than I am continuly tempted to move back to either Texas or Nevada. Unfortunatly with either choice I have to make a decision between my summer and winter sport. If Nevada had a coast, or Texas had respectable mountains I would be gone, and I would take my money and my contribution to the economy of my state with me. In CA we pay outlandish taxes and have the WORST public upkeep. There are more homeless people, more very poor people, roads and road signs desperatly need repair, public buildings look like they will come down any minute. And racesism, gang activity...shiver etc. etc. Same with OK. In Texas and Nevada the public upkeep is great, the roads are wide and smooth, the signs actualy tell you usefull up to date info. There are fewer desperatly poor people, less homelessness. Less gang activity and racesism. etc. etc. Can anyone explain this? Maybe it's taxation? Maybe it's conservative fiscal policies. What else could it be? We are recalling our governer though, maybe things will change. (unfortunatly this might mean that the T1 model will be missing from the next terminator movie). = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
Jan Coffey wrote: So get on board with the majority in forign policy and focus on the facts of a history we have with econmoics. Who will do this? Hmmm, why get on board a sinking ship? http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
At 11:32 PM 7/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:54:24PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: What I'm trying to come around to: trickle up for good or evil has been in place seventy years, In different degrees. The democrats tend to tilt it towards more progressive taxation, and the Republicans toward less progressive taxation. Which way tends to grow the GDP faster? Democrat policies. at least as government policy, and it certainly hasn't eliminated the poor, it has probably increased. No, periods leaning more to trickle down have increased the gap between rich and poor more than have the trickle up leaning periods. I know this is a bad statement. Huh? Do you mean an unpopular statement? -- Erik Reuter No I meant it exactly as you have criticized it; that someone was going to say: oh, there is only more poor because the rich have gotten wealthier. Thanks. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Sunday 2003-07-20 18:54, Kevin Tarr wrote: From: Trent Shipley In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they require legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems stabilize with huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a combination of social atomization (probably a result of immigration--Americans feel relatively little organic connection to neighbors compared to the Dutch or Scandanavians) and Puritan heritage (meaning that wealth is regarded as both a sign of virture and an absolute right) have made trickle up policies very difficult to pass in the US. In short, 'trickle up', 'share the wealth' policies are regarded as un-American. I agree with what you are saying, but couldn't there be another factor? I'm wondering: from 1450 to 1600 or 1700s (whenever real colonization of the Americas began) was there any middle class in Europe? There had to be some tip over point where a person could see that he didn't have to be a surf, or go into the priesthood, or join an army to become better than the situation he was born into. I'm sure the industrial revolution played a part in that, but were there any worker strikes in Europe before America? No. There were no worker strikes to speak of before the 1800s. There were guild actions, bread riots, and peasant rebellions--but nothing quite like an Industral Revolution labor action. I'm just trying to imagine a world where Americas became another Europe with all the old ways. Instead of toiling on farms for some wealthy landowner, they toiled in a factory for some wealthy factory owner. I'm sure for some of the more socialist list members, this is the system we have now but I'm trying to be realistic, in my fantasy world. Slavery. Its in the Constitution. 3/5ths of a person and so on. While anecdotal evidence is bad, I've know plenty of people who lived before and during the depression who say We weren't poor. Maybe we only ate meat twice a week, or had tough winters, but we made due. Human nature was the same back then. They knew who the truly poor families were and I doubt as many people died of starvation or were homeless. (When the population as a whole had a normal supply of food and shelter.) Some families did have tough times from lack of work or losing one or both parents for whatever reason, but not a small fraction brought it on themselves through drinking or other non-productive behaviors. but not a small fraction brought it [poverty] on themselves through drinking or other non-productive behaviors - Indeed. But that sort of *radical* investment in personal responsibility and denial of any reciprocal responsibilty for members of an (organic) community can only exist in the Americas--and to a lesser extent in Anglophone countries. Scandanavians feel obliged to care for less fortunate neigbors--and if that misfortune is partly self inflicted, then they deal with the dysfunction. (Scandinavians who don't like this move to America.) I know American's who feel very little obligation toward adult family members. I rember being in highschool with other kids who were really terrified that their parents would cut them off when they turned 18. (It even shows up in pop culture. On Buffy Xander graduates and his parents move him to the basement and charge rent.) What I'm trying to come around to: trickle up for good or evil has been in place seventy years, at least as government policy, and it certainly hasn't eliminated the poor, it has probably increased. I know this is a bad statement. Well, its actually wrong. America, and Americans, were *much* poorer in the 1930s and before. Immense swaths of the country and whole populations were brought into the mainstream by the New Deal. In a lot of ways the Great Society also worked -- and the demise of Jim Crow didn't hurt either. The real problem with share the wealth, trickle up programs, besides the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow growth. If you put off the sharing for another 20 years ... the wealth curve with either stay the same or get worse. On the up side there will probably be *a lot* more wealth to share AND the poor may no longer be misable and powerless--just powerless. But since trickle down gave them a lot more stuff too, they might be satisfied with the current state of bread and circuses, allowing for another 20 years of full growth. Oh yeah, trickle down programs also tend to be anti-cyclical. They help stabilize the economy. Though trickle-up entitelments slow growth, they also help lessen recessions. I don't want to hear about Herr Doctor's diamond shaped society because for 10,000 years there was no such thing. We can't expect this recent change in the human condition to be stable. I'm not saying it should go away, and we should fight however hard we can to keep it, but there will be ups and downs. What I'm
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:15:47AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote: The real problem with share the wealth, trickle up programs, besides the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow growth. Do you have any data to support this? Because the data I've seen shows exactly the opposite. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Monday 2003-07-21 03:57, Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:15:47AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote: The real problem with share the wealth, trickle up programs, besides the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow growth. Do you have any data to support this? Because the data I've seen shows exactly the opposite. [Ignoring the morality issue...] 0) I will stipulate that the US economy has grown more under Democratic than Republican administrations. However: 1) Desipte its romance with Clinton, Wall Street (or at least Wall Streeters) has (have) historically prefered Republican Presidents. 2) Highly socialist countries like Cuba have historically had much lower rates of growth than captialist counterparts. Very laizie faire capitalist economies like Hong Kong have often had stellar growth. As premiere of China Deng Xiaopeng (sp?) decided that China was is a position of sharing poverty, and had the fundemental problem of not having enough wealth to share. He liberalized the economy and it grew spectacularly. (Admittedly, this could have nothing to do with share the wealth, and be caused entirely by planned control.) 3) Western European and Canadian economies were never command economies, but have had much higher commitments to trickle-up policies. Post-WWII US rates of growth lead European growth rates--especially if you adjust for the pseudo-growth produced by post-war reconstruction. 4) The IMF is *always* hostile to trickle-up policies, subsidies, price controls and entitlement programs. 5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the late 1980s and popular reporting on economics over more than the last twenty years emphasize the importance of Hayak-Freedman neo-liberal economic policies--including low tax burdens, hence, limited opportunity for trickle-up redistributive policies. 6) The sample size of post-WWI US Presidents is too small to resoundingly endorse trickle-up policies. Furthermore, any weak finding of correlation between Democratic administrations, prosperity, and trickle-up policies is at odds with the preponderance of theoretical economic opinion per #5. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, periods leaning more to trickle down have increased the gap between rich and poor more than have the trickle up leaning periods. There you go. That is exactly what needs to be expressed and isn't. At least not as loud as it should. Instead everyone is focused on the war. And in this arena the trickle up-ers are loosing. So get on board with the majority in forign policy and focus on the facts of a history we have with econmoics. Who will do this? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Sunday 2003-07-20 14:36, Robert J. Chassell wrote: trickle down: more money to the rich The argument for giving more money to the rich than to the poor is that the rich save more. (That is to say, they save a higher portion of additional income; in jargon, their marginal propensity to save is higher.) After buying big boats, big houses, and jet airplanes, there is not so much left to buy; so the money must be saved. This has been observed empirically. (I cannot remember the numbers.) Saved money can be placed into non-productive investments like cash, or into investments like land, or into investments like factories. If the latter, factories are built, employing people to building and being staffed after being built, also employing people. The employed people receive enough money to buy a portion of what the factory puts out. The general presumption is that the latter occurs, and that the investment takes place at home, not in another country. The dangers are that the rich follow the other two ways of handling money: In the Great Depression, the rich figured that there were no productive investments, so they did not invest in them. In the jargon, this is called a `liquidity trap'. Lower interest rates does not help, since the rich see no reason to borrow money that will not return a profit. Only spending money on the poor helps. The current fear of deflation comes from this experience. Investments in land often mean a transfer of income from one group of rich to another such group. The third danger is that factory investment takes place overseas. For example, right now, major business reports are saying that the US rich are expanding business capacity more in China than in the US. Thus, right now, giving more money to the US rich means providing more money to investment in China. This was the policy of the Clinton administration (they called it `constructive engagement') but is not liked by many Americans, who would prefer that they be employed than that Chinese be employed. Of course, protections for local labor and investment markets lead to other dillemas. trickle up: more money to the poor -- The argument for giving more money to the poor than the rich is that the poor spend more. They do not already have two jet airplanes and a large boat. By spending more, they increase demand for goods. This leads to factories producing more. If the factories are in the local country, then more local people are employed. If the factories are in a foreign country, such as China, then more Chinese are employed. Either way, the rich do not face a `liquidity trap' since they see profitable investments for their money in factories either at home or abroad. Also, there is the argument that a person who has little money will find a hundred dollars more useful than a person who has a lot of money. That is because the one hundred dollars is a bigger portion of the poor person's income or wealth than of the rich person's. Hence, the government gets `more bang for the buck' by giving money to the poor than the rich. The counter argument is that a person with only 1 US dollars will waste an additional 100 dollars, but a person with a million US dollars will spend or invest an additional 100 dollars in a manner that provides more benefit for both the rich and the poor person than the same money going to the poor person. In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they require legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems stabilize with huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a combination of social atomization (probably a result of immigration--Americans feel relatively little organic connection to neighbors compared to the Dutch or Scandanavians) and Puritan heritage (meaning that wealth is regarded as both a sign of virture and an absolute right) have made trickle up policies very difficult to pass in the US. In short, 'trickle up', 'share the wealth' policies are regarded as un-American. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
From: Trent Shipley In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they require legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems stabilize with huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a combination of social atomization (probably a result of immigration--Americans feel relatively little organic connection to neighbors compared to the Dutch or Scandanavians) and Puritan heritage (meaning that wealth is regarded as both a sign of virture and an absolute right) have made trickle up policies very difficult to pass in the US. In short, 'trickle up', 'share the wealth' policies are regarded as un-American. I agree with what you are saying, but couldn't there be another factor? I'm wondering: from 1450 to 1600 or 1700s (whenever real colonization of the Americas began) was there any middle class in Europe? There had to be some tip over point where a person could see that he didn't have to be a surf, or go into the priesthood, or join an army to become better than the situation he was born into. I'm sure the industrial revolution played a part in that, but were there any worker strikes in Europe before America? I'm just trying to imagine a world where Americas became another Europe with all the old ways. Instead of toiling on farms for some wealthy landowner, they toiled in a factory for some wealthy factory owner. I'm sure for some of the more socialist list members, this is the system we have now but I'm trying to be realistic, in my fantasy world. While anecdotal evidence is bad, I've know plenty of people who lived before and during the depression who say We weren't poor. Maybe we only ate meat twice a week, or had tough winters, but we made due. Human nature was the same back then. They knew who the truly poor families were and I doubt as many people died of starvation or were homeless. (When the population as a whole had a normal supply of food and shelter.) Some families did have tough times from lack of work or losing one or both parents for whatever reason, but not a small fraction brought it on themselves through drinking or other non-productive behaviors. What I'm trying to come around to: trickle up for good or evil has been in place seventy years, at least as government policy, and it certainly hasn't eliminated the poor, it has probably increased. I know this is a bad statement. I don't want to hear about Herr Doctor's diamond shaped society because for 10,000 years there was no such thing. We can't expect this recent change in the human condition to be stable. I'm not saying it should go away, and we should fight however hard we can to keep it, but there will be ups and downs. What I'm more worried about is being dragged down, not by consolidation of wealth at the top, but by everyone below. (Another stupid, bad statement, but this is the last line I wrote and I'm going to bed. The rest was written before.) Let's be honest: the poor in this country are far better off then the poor in other countries. That does not give me or them any comfort. Yes, I'm isolated from the truly poor people where I live. I know I don't do enough to help, but a tax system that forces me to help is the worst thing to do. I have to ask: how many of us sci-fi readers think of the Star Trek universe as the best, as far as humanity is concerned. Would we look at earth 2350 and see no poverty? The first season of ST:TNG had the crew waking three deep sleep humans. Sure, just like Bones in ST IV: The Search for Whales, the doctor could treat their maladies, but Crusher also cleaned their addictions, and they talked about having no money. Do we believe that human nature has been cleaned also? Everyone works, no one covets anothers' things, there is no envy or greed? (Lust and to a lessor extent jealousy are still there, just look at Kirk.) Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:36:11PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: Hence, the government gets `more bang for the buck' by giving money to the poor than the rich. Yes, and if you look at GDP growth, it is greater with trickle up than trickle down. The counter argument is that a person with only 1 US dollars will waste an additional 100 dollars, but a person with a million US dollars will spend or invest an additional 100 dollars in a manner that provides more benefit for both the rich and the poor person than the same money going to the poor person. That sounds like a shaky argument to me. How will the poor person waste the $100? What are they likely to spend it on that doesn't help to increase demand? The capital (capacity) utilization in America is lower now than it has been in many years. If we want to grow the GDP more quickly, first we have to get the capacity utilization up so that businesses start investing in more capital and hiring more people, which is what grows the GDP. The way to do that is to generate more demand for products and services. And one way to do that, which has better in the past than trickle down, is to get more money into the hands of the people who will spend it on goods and services -- people who are not rich (as you said, the rich will tend to save additional money unless there are good investments, and there aren't many good investments when capacity utilization is so low). -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:54:24PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: What I'm trying to come around to: trickle up for good or evil has been in place seventy years, In different degrees. The democrats tend to tilt it towards more progressive taxation, and the Republicans toward less progressive taxation. Which way tends to grow the GDP faster? Democrat policies. at least as government policy, and it certainly hasn't eliminated the poor, it has probably increased. No, periods leaning more to trickle down have increased the gap between rich and poor more than have the trickle up leaning periods. I know this is a bad statement. Huh? Do you mean an unpopular statement? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
