Wealth doesn't trickle down.

[amadeus]

Because, you know, that money just disappears when it's moved offshore. It's put into big Scrooge McDuck vaults where Mitt Romney likes to go swimming in gold coins.

 

[Ajidica]

It's put into big Scroogr McDuck vaults where Mitt Romney likes to go swimming in gold coins.

You have it wrong. Ron Paul prefers the gold coins.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Because, you know, that money just disappears when it's moved offshore.

Yes. For all intents and purposes it pretty much disappears from the national economy.

 

[Cutlass]

Because, you know, that money just disappears when it's moved offshore. It's put into big Scroogr McDuck vaults where Mitt Romney likes to go swimming in gold coins.

It doesn't get invested, that's for sure.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is this going to be one of those threads where the liberals decide that they're die-hard socialists in the very specific matter of capital export?

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not a socialist at all. What I object to is people writing laws that allow themselves and their cronies to evade paying their damned bills.

 

[Archbob]

The Kochs, Adelson, Romney, Ryan and the GOP establishment are all about the tax cuts for the rich. Maybe a few extra wars for good measure.

The Republican voters are freaking out over porno, tramp stamps, gays, agnostics, girls gone wild, condoms, etc.

Hi, what can I say, the average person is pretty ******** when it comes to voting for policies that benefit themselves.

 

[Old Hippy]

i think everyone so far is missing the point that wealth does trickle down to the poor, lifting them up to the middle class... the theory is sound, just ask the Chinese how Americas wealth has trickled down to them, how it boosts the economy, lowers unemployment and gives everyone a cell phone... its a win/win situation between America's rich and China's poor

 

[Andvare]

I'll just accuse you of envy and class warfare before everyone else gets to

Firsties!

Thank you.

It's the work of the working class that drives the economy.

Well, that as well.
Without any consumption there is no economy (in a monetary based capitalist system), there is nothing for the workers to produce.

 

[Borachio]

Without any consumption there is no economy (in a monetary based capitalist system), there is nothing for the workers to produce.

Except what the workers require for themselves, perhaps? Yes, I know this is a bit circular.

Every worker is a consumer, but not every consumer is a worker.

 

[Cutlass]

Except what the workers require for themselves, perhaps? Yes, I know this is a bit circular.

Every worker is a consumer, but not every consumer is a worker.

The problem is that if workers consume no more than subsistence, or subsistence for them and their dependents, then the rate of unemployment will be very high and get forever worse, because productivity does not stay stagnant over time.

A market economy must have high and rising wages at all times or growth will be weak and instability will be high.

 

[Borachio]

That makes some sense. A possible solution involves reducing the number of workers or increasing the amount of work.

 

[Cutlass]

The way to increase the amount of work is to pay much higher wages, and make certain wages continuously increase.

 

[innonimatu]

Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore, research reveals

You see, that's why I oppose cutting CO2 emissions: if that global warming prediction turn out to be true we'll be finally rid of all the offshore in the make-believe independent islands.

 

[Leoreth]

That depends. Can you set up a letterbox underwater?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

You see, that's why I oppose cutting CO2 emissions: if that global warming prediction turn out to be true we'll be finally rid of all the offshore in the make-believe independent islands.

How do you suppose we flood Switzerland ?

 

[peter grimes]

The problem is that if workers consume no more than subsistence, or subsistence for them and their dependents, then the rate of unemployment will be very high and get forever worse, because productivity does not stay stagnant over time.

A market economy must have high and rising wages at all times or growth will be weak and instability will be high.

Just today on the Tavis Smiley show they were talking about the outdated 'poverty line' metric:
-75% of food stamp recipients are fully employed.
-50% of US workers are either below the poverty line or within 1 missed paycheck of it.
-If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation it would be over $10/hr (that's like €7.5 for our civilized readers)

But these numbers apply to a market ecomony, as you say.


What about a steady-state economy?

 

[Cutlass]

The concept of a steady state economy doesn't apply. That's Malthus. It only applies to societies that have no real productivity growth. And it isn't a very stead state even then, because it's going to be subject to wild swings due to population changes and other factors. Economists talk about "equilibrium" a lot, but it's a fictitious concept. Continuous change is the order of the day. But it's only in the industrial era that change tends to be really fast over the long run.

 

[History_Buff]

Is this going to be one of those threads where the liberals decide that they're die-hard socialists in the very specific matter of capital export?

Well it does speak to bad policy. I've heard quite a few economist say that the reason so many corporations are holding all their earnings offshore is that they're expecting there to eventually to be a tax holiday for such money; quite likely in the name of stimulating the economy. So it makes sense to them to leave it there until it happens, or someone dispels that notion.

 

[Joecoolyo]

How do you suppose we flood Switzerland ?

I assume the ice in the Alps would suffice.