Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Too bad Ronald Reagan and his mates weren't in on the joke.  But, hey, let's keep pushing for the massive re-distribution of wealth - UPWARD - and hope that a crumb or two will make it down to the lady who puts mints on the pillows in your fancy hotel...

https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke?fbclid=IwAR2swOl23CruoUE1WDgwWvwgEIC02TIsgJw8CGka42J7Je7ZkL27uzJcGsI

Dave

Hi David:

The "joke" premise would be a lot more interesting, if Reagan or his staff ever used the term "trickle down" to describe their economic policies.  But they did not.  Trickle down economics is a pejorative used for decades by Keynesian economists, Democrats,  and the press to spin Reagan's policies.  Let's consider your hypothetical maid.  Is her economic status in life better now than it was in 1980?  How about in 1940?  How about in 1870?  Maybe 1500?  They did have inns and maids back then, you know.

Jim 

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi David:

The "joke" premise would be a lot more interesting, if Reagan or his staff ever used the term "trickle down" to describe their economic policies.  But they did not.  Trickle down economics is a pejorative used for decades by Keynesian economists, Democrats,  and the press to spin Reagan's policies.  Let's consider your hypothetical maid.  Is her economic status in life better now than it was in 1980?  How about in 1940?  How about in 1870?  Maybe 1500?  They did have inns and maids back then, you know.

Jim 

Hi Dave:

Here is a journal article to read, if you are actually interested in Reagan's actual policies versus the common and tedious attacks made against a caricature of conservative economic policies.  

http://www.webcitation.org/6AvD7JHEC

Jim

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Well, maybe Reagan didn't call it that but his budget director sure did      

David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:[3][4]

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory".

— David Stockman, The Atlantic
(Wikipedia)

The question is whether or not giving the biggest and best tax breaks to the uber-rich and to corporations results in increased or decreased economic quality of life and access to upward mobility for the middle class or the poor.  The ever-widening Rich-Poor gap in most western countries says that "Supply-side" or "trickle-down" or whatever it is called is most definitely not a blessing for anyone outside of the top few percent of earners....

And as for the hotel worker..... Shall we compare the ratio of the annual income of the CEO of the hotel chain to the annual income of the hotel maid in 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 etc.   

Well, here's a graph just from 1965 to the present.  

 
Dave

Hi Dave:

You are mis-using that graph.  It is interesting data, but it has little to do with the wealth, economic status and income of the poor, like our hypothetical maid.  The poor in North America now enjoy incomes, wealth and material comforts that would have been solidly middle class 100 years ago.  

Similarly, the truly poor huddled masses of 100 years ago don't exist in 2019, in North America.  This is probably the result of technology as much as anything else, but the economic status of the poor has gone up tons in the last 100 years, in spite of your "ever-widening" Rich/Poor gap.  Also, I think that you would find a Rich/Poor gap that dwarfs today's gap if you looked from say 1920 to perhaps the beginning of time.  The industrial revolution (and associated social/societal changes) ushered in an era of prosperity for the poor that is literally unprecedented in human history.  The authors of your chart choose 1965 as a starting point on purpose.  Andrew Carnegie probably made a million times what his maid made in any given year.  Louis the X!V probably made a billion times what his maids made.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

This kind of political attack, misrepresenting your opponent's actual position, is hardly the monopoly of the left. 

Hi James:

True of course.  Earlier in this thread you mentioned that, "The Republican tax cut was, in fact, a give away to the wealthy. For example, while the average corporate tax rate fell from 24% to 12%, the individual tax rate only fell from 9.6% to 9.2%. Full report here..."  That is a complex sentence, and I want to make sure that I am not misinterpreting your point.  The corporate tax cut will help the wealthy, the middle class and the poor as well, assuming that folks of all economic classes are working for corporations, and in the case of the middle class, investing in a 401k that uses date of retirement funds, index funds and the like, and in the case of everyone enjoying a growing economy.  Therefore, I see the corporate tax rate cut being a winner for all economic classes, not just the rich. 

I certainly wish my individual rate were 9.6% or 9.2%!  Since it is not, maybe I did get a bigger tax break than my neighbor, but still I pay a lot of taxes.  These discussions of rate structure would be best carried out under the recognition that a progressive rate tax system can be tuned to optimize this or that desired result, with more or less hope of predictable economic results.   That is not the angle folks such as David'e initial "Joke" author take though!  They see everything through the lens of class warfare.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Hi Jim,
I'm going to jump in here for a moment and add a bit on the overall economic picture for the middle class. And by that I mean the current economic policies of the Trump administration. It should be obvious that means the tariffs and their negative impact on economic growth both nationally and globally. In the recent one on Mexico, even Trump's own team of economic advisers have attempted to dissuade him from pursuing it but to no avail. The tariffs amount to another tax on consumers, albeit a sales tax on affected commodities, since the cost is passed onto Americans buying the products. Look at the downturn in the stock market and the negative impact on 401ks. That's slamming a lot of people now and whatever they have saved from a tax cut is likely obviated by the decline in valuations in their portfolios...

Hi Rod:

I agree.  

Jim

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Oh boy! Another "But Hillary" rebuttal.  Well, at least you didn't squeeze out a "Snert"....

Simple question:

Do you care that the Russians are interfering in your elections or not.  

Dave

Hi Dave:

Hopefully simple answer:

I suppose I care, but not too much.  It is entirely predictable and unsurprising that nations would try to interfere in each other's elections.  Only a fool would expect otherwise.  I have seen no compelling evidence that the Russians have effectively interfered in any US election.  Secretary Clinton lost 2016 the old-fashioned way, by running the most incompetent campaign in recent history.

I do expect the Federal and all 50 State governments to take reasonable steps to insure that electronic voting machines and ancillary computer networks are not hacked.  Cyber security is a fact of life in 2019 that we all must deal with.  I care very little if Russian troll farms hit social media with fake news and fake political ads.   I do favor technical solutions to minimize this sort of thing, but I also have deep disdain for anyone whose vote is influenced by side-bar ads on Facebook.  Uniformed voters (of any party) are a fact of life too.  I doubt that troll ads and fake news make much difference in any election.  


Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I hadn't viewed the other astro website for quite awhile, not even on a cloudy evening, so I thought I might take a peek. You know, it's pretty much how and why I left it...
Let me see,  "I sent my mirror out for refiguring to so and so and it's been two years now, what should I do?" Or, I sent my mirror to the same guy and I never got it back so I bought a new one" Or, "my coulter mirror has a chip in it, what can I do?" And, "What's a coulter?"...
Then, it's tell me what's wrong with my mirror time with just about every screwy-looking diffraction pattern you've ever seen, most of which can be explained by the seeing...

Hi Rod:

Yes, it is a huge pain to wade through the silliness posted by self-anointed equipment gurus and general know-it-all types on the other US site.  The herd mentality is hilarious as well.   Still, at least there is some equipment/astronomy discussion over there.  My forums here (refractors and deep sky CCD imaging) are all but dead.  One or two posts a month.  

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It doesn't bother me at all.

1. There are die-hard Trump supporters who are not persuadable.
2. Some people were not fond of Trump but now are reluctant supporters.
3. Some people were not fond of Trump, and are even now detractors.
4. There are never-Trumpers.

Assuming categories one and four do not have enough people to decide the election one way or the other; it's the people in groups two and three who will determine the election. So, is Trump driving category two away and worsening his reputation with class three, with all of his recent twitter tirades, or is he doing the opposite? Depends on who you ask. However, it's hard for me to imagine that he is making his position better. In other words, is he persuading reluctant supporters and improving his standing with detractors? Seems hard to believe that he is for me anyway.

Hi James:

That is a reasonable summary.  I think that the D nominee and his or her policy positions and attitudes are going to decide the election though.  Trump, love him or hate him is a known quantity.  As in 2018, lots of people, (maybe most people(?)) will be voting against one candidate or the other.

Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

You lefties seem to be escalating your anti-trump rhetoric recently.....must be dawning on you that he will likely be re-elected and likely that the house will fall to the right as well.

Hi Greg, Darian:

I don't know how you two can be so optimistic.  It seems to me that Trump is likely to lose.  I know that the polls were wrong in 2016, and I recall that I sure was wrong with my predictions back then.  But.... it ought to be so easy for the D's to win.  Flipping Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would do it, and that should not be impossible.  Unless the D's nominate a socialist in name or deed, I suppose.

If the economy does falter, I would think that a Trump win would be all but impossible.

Sure, the pollsters blew it last time, in part because so many Trump voters refused to answer polls or misled the pollsters.  Perhaps more importantly, Trump must have gotten some inconsistent voters to vote in the upper Midwest, and Clinton blew the turnout in these states big time.  Both of these occurrences skewed the models the pollsters rely upon.  I would expect the legit pollsters (Gallup, Quinnipiac, NBC/WSJ etc.) to be cautious about these effects next time, and make reasonable adjustments.  The legit pollsters do have some professional pride.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Job creation was off by 500,000 since 2018 than previously reported. The Bureau of Labor Statistics just released revised numbers. US Steel stock is at a 52 week low and dropped 50% of its value in just the last six months. US Steel is also having record layoffs. Farmers are declaring bankruptcy. Truckers say they can't make a living anymore. The deficit increases by record amounts every time the CBO looks at it. Why anyone is still supporting this pathological lying charlatan with decades of well documented fraud and failures can only be attributed to party loyalty.

Hi James:

I don't think that tactical D arguments of the economy actually being no good are going to fly.  Many, many people are experiencing the benefits of the good economy, and this overwhelms the lesser number of folks who are specifically impacted by crummy tariff policy and such.  

I really think this is an interesting comment:  "Why anyone is still supporting this pathological lying charlatan with decades of well documented fraud and failures can only be attributed to party loyalty."  My short answer is yes.  You are certainly describing me in 2016 and 2020 (if I vote for Trump.)  As a Republican, I would prefer a Republican government.  Not on 100% of the issues of course, but on more than 50% of the issues.  I definitely like conservative judges, conservative tax policy and I distrust big government "plans for that."  You probably know where I stand on almost any issue in view of a decade and a half of banter.

Character does matter to me, but it does not swamp everything else, particularly since I'm pretty jaded about the character of anyone in Washington DC.  Secretary Clinton was certainly not a model of virtue in my opinion, so the character issue washed out to become simply a choice between bad and worse.  Virtually everyone who considers character important lined up on which candidate was bad and who was worse based upon ideology alone.

So, at the end of the day, I think that your phrase, slightly modified, will accurately describe the vote of most Democrats and Republicans:

Why anyone is still supporting this (fill in a long list of personal shortcomings, vices, and felonious behavior) can only be attributed to party loyalty. 

Jim