You don’t really know what that term means, you just read it a lot.
Trickle-down economics(supply side economics) is the theory that making the rich “richer” will make the poor wealthier as well. An advocate of “trickle-down” would suggest that we give the rich a big tax break, so that they have more money to spend on boats.
I am not advocating for trickle-down economics. Neither was Louis XIV.
I do want them to buy boats, I just don’t want to give them any more money to do it. They will either buy boats or not and tax breaks are going to change their minds about yachting.
I am advocating that when the rich spend their money on expensive bobbles and toys(voluntarily), it doesn’t hurt the poor. In simpler terms, don’t worry about luxury goods manufacturers. If anything, they are good for the poor. Sure, you wont buy their shit, but they will hire you to make their shit.
This is not an economic position, just simply a counterpoint to the constant barrage of attacks on the rich for flaunting their wealth. We WANT THEM to flaunt their wealth. We want them to buy shit and spend their money foolishly.
In that at least then it’s temporarily returned to circulation, rather than being permanently sequestered in a bank somewhere? While taxing it is preferable, it’s still better than it sitting completely out of circulation? That sort of idea? I can see the logic and agree with it, but I’d still prefer to tax that money rather than depend on the lack of sense among the rich.
I disagree with you on the flaunting their wealth. It’s pretty much been shown that the broader the basis of consumerism (the more people who can spend money), the more likely the economy will be healthy. The broader base consumer economy makes the wheels turn now, not the spending of the elites, even if that was the case under the Sun King.
In that at least then it’s temporarily returned to circulation, rather than being permanently sequestered in a bank somewhere? While taxing it is preferable, it’s still better than it sitting completely out of circulation? That sort of idea? I can see the logic and agree with it, but I’d still prefer to tax that money rather than depend on the lack of sense among the rich.
Economic theory time:
If my choice was get money via taxation or money through economic activity, then I would always prefer economic activity. This is a bit of false equivalency, as I cannot ever guarantee that a billionaire will spend 100% of his wealth in his lifetime but I can guarantee a 100% estate tax.
However, as even successful communist countries have shown(China), markets and transactional money flow is a more robust and resilient system for an economy.
However, I would personally prefer nudge or incentive programs that encouraged wealthy people to spend their money BEFORE it got taxed rather than simply taxing it.
Not going to disagree.
I didn’t make my point very well.
If you have to criticize this man, criticize the fact that he was allowed to earn $7.5B without much higher taxes. Don’t criticize him for selling expensive toys to rich people or buying those expensive toys himself. Those are both harmless enterprises that do not negatively impact the economy. If we outlawed luxury goods, we wouldn’t exactly improve the financial situation of those beneath the poverty line.
Hmmm… maybe? I’d have to think about that for a bit, whether or not it’s entirely harmless aspect of the economy. I get the jobs aspect of the argument, of course, and don’t disagree there. I don’t know if we can call the luxury market entire harmless, though.
I’d still argue that a stronger boost to the economy comes from giving the working poor money (in tax returns or financial help, etc), because they are more likely to put it back into the economy than to hold onto it. I do think that the hoarding of money by the elites is harmful, which is one of the major problems we have going on now. I’d also say that that money is more productive when put into the economy - spending on their labor force, who will put that back into the economy itself.
But I still think you were right about Le Roi, though. For better or worse, it was the first widening of the consumer economy, which helped to diversify the economy, which spread downwards to more people.
Really? Shame. If you did, I’d have offered Piketty, Thomas, and Gabriel Zucman. “Capital is back: Wealth-income ratios in rich countries 1700–2010.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129, no. 3 (2014): 1255-1310 as highly instructive for the material basis of what I wanted to say. Long-term, capitalism drives income disparity. It’s just how it works.
Now given that Hillary Clinton, who very much didn’t want Trump to win spent 1.18 billion dollars (a lot of which comes from selfsame billionaires) trying to convince America not to elect Trump (who spent 616 million or so trying to convince it of doing otherwise), I am interested in knowing how much is required to effect the win you confidently expect? Two billion? This was already the most expensive political race in history, and (speaking as an outsider, admittedly) I cannot imagine any more media coverage. Hell, Europeans got sick of the election and we were well out of the ground-zero for the media blitz.
The fact of the matter is that the billionaires (some of them: people without some faction of billionaires behind them don’t get to be contenders in American presidential politics) did get together, did raise vast sums, and were convinced, if you’ll recall, that they WON. If I remember the distant, innocent times of 2016 correctly, places like CNN had Hillary not just winning but straight-up ending Trump in the elections with something like 99% probability. Nate Silver got cussed out for shifting his estimate 70/30 in Hillary’s favor, too, if I remember it right.
You, however, have an opinion of a time we’ve both lived through that’s in stark variance to the above and so, puzzled, I can’t help but [citation needed]. What extra source of info do you have that I missed?
In support of your ambivalent position: While turning the wheels of economy is a valuable thing even if through gewgaws, some forms of luxury may have an ecological impact that’s outsized and largely externalized compared to their positive influence on things.
On the other hand, something like those preposterously expensive mechanical watches is basically a wealth transfer program from stupid rich people to clever Swiss mechanical engineers (okay, largely their employers, but still) which is, compared to most uses excess money gets put is basically a miracle.
I will leave you be if you are cross, or unduly distressed, but, before I do: surely Trump losing must mean Hillary winning? The goals are one and the same. And a large amount of spending of any campaign is convincing the public that the other candidate is not fit to vote for.
If you would, recall the very blasé Republican primary season… Trump showboating. All the names, insults, assaults at his rallies, and general BS. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this threat. I did. Didn’t you? I’m talking about in real time, not retrospect.
Bloomberg made noise, then backed off. Nobody thought ahead. Nobody with the wherewithal and the means thought ahead to take him out when they could have. They just watched it happen. They either aided him, were buddies with the Koch brothers, or they sat silent and let it happen because they thought he would be good, economically. Or they thought he didn’t stand a chance? I dunno precisely what each one of them thought, but the net result is very poor planning for their billions in wealth. Let their own future be partly determined by a raving madman? Really?
Again, my only point here is that millionaires and billionaires failed to plan. They failed us and they failed themselves. My opinion is that their money has them so blind that they cannot perceive threats accurately.
All that’s needed is a war or pandemic; either can be engineered. Some of the 1% might get their hair mussed, of course, and the market will take a hit, but the debris can be cleaned up.
