|
|
Post by grizzly on Oct 8, 2021 14:28:48 GMT
You see that is my issue. You can say it doesn't work at all but my opinion is that the reality of economics is going to be sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't because it's exponentially complex. Trickle down economics isn't some sort of complicated political theory applied to a complicated system: It's a propaganda line. It's a very simple promise: Everyone becomes more wealthy when the rich can do what they want. It's a simple outcome with a simple start date (1981) that you can empirically test and chart on, say, a graph. Like the pew research center has done!. You could make the argument that economics is super complicated but but it shouldn't be hard to point at an outcome of it working - it should definitely not be harder then it is for me to point to outcomes where it very definitely is not working. I don't need to know how plumbing works to understand that if after a plumber's visit there's sewage coming out of all the faucets someone has fucked up. One question though, if we're a services based economy which is centered around London, because these firms only require a phone line and this facilitates moving production to cheaper markets, do you think it would be prudent to go after the wealthiest. I don't think you could predict the consequence. Well you could, you are murdered. Any approach to go after tax havens would necessarily have to be international, but remember how much these companies can do what they want because they know how to exploit tax loopholes in the countries their based in, not just the tax havens themselves, but also the places that let them go to tax havens. A nation actually flexing its muscles can do a lot to bring a company in line: The UK has socialized healthcare, and part of why that works is becuase the NHS can just flex its muscles and go "Okay, but if you put your prices higher then that we will just go somewhere else and you will lose a market of 70 million", which is how you get stuff like this. Note the US being the big outlier here becuase it refuses to do this ( further reading). You can absolutely apply a similar approach to tax dodgers and companies, and it's not like it hasn't been done before - and it's not like people didn't have the ability to off-load production costs to other places either, we just called it "colonialism" back in the day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2021 14:35:26 GMT
that MP who said £82K salary was 'really grim' voted to slash welfare 49 times.
I don't think that was mentioned in the other posts. He is a real piece of work
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill in the rain on Oct 8, 2021 14:41:27 GMT
There's also the issue that Thomas Piketty pointed out, where the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth. Meaning that by far the best thing for rich people to do is just hold onto their wealth... and even if that's all they do, the wealth gap will still increase because they'll be getting a higher return than working people's wages increase.
Not much incentive to trickle down things in that situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Oct 8, 2021 14:46:40 GMT
that MP who said £82K salary was 'really grim' voted to slash welfare 49 times. I don't think that was mentioned in the other posts. He is a real piece of work
When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2021 14:51:27 GMT
that MP who said £82K salary was 'really grim' voted to slash welfare 49 times. I don't think that was mentioned in the other posts. He is a real piece of work
When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.
the old git will be a bit tough and bitter... |
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Oct 8, 2021 16:28:18 GMT
I've no idea if the Question Time last night was a freak accident but I really didn't expect the government and Brexit to get such a battering from the Aldershot audience. This town has returned a Tory ever since the seat was first created in 1918 and voted Leave by 58.2%. The town used to have a pretty good Europhile MP in Sir Julian Critchley, he was hated by Thatcher for being a wet, but he retired before the '97 election. I have some personal experience as I was born in the town and other a handful of years in the Antipodes have lived there, I think people are pretty pissed off with how things are going and the town has been on a downward trajectory since the financial crash. It's just been nice that hopefully it maybe a sign that things are turning but if it isn't it at least wasn't an episode of QT that had me questioning my sanity for watching it. |
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Oct 8, 2021 16:32:30 GMT
These low tax havens need sorting.
This is some suspiciously good timing...
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 8, 2021 16:49:58 GMT
Good posts; when I describe economics as being too complex to be able to predict I mean the way it is measured I think they spot patterns or trends based on contextual variables. I think when you start to think about it as a subject it's baffling. Brexit was a good example about the effect of economic flux when there is no modern yardstick so as to facilitate a good predictive system.
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Oct 8, 2021 17:07:06 GMT
In all honesty I think that's mainly a failing of the political side. There have been plenty of "no-deal" brexit predictions (including the current bogged down logistics), but economic impacts of Brexit itself have been pretty difficult to predict beforehand simply because nobody knew what "brexit" was supposed to look like. Hell, a lot of people in charge didn't seem to know what they wanted the thing to look like.
There have been plenty of "no-deal" predictions and I suppose you could contrast and compare those to the current situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 8, 2021 17:14:28 GMT
It was a curious decision. I think Boris Johnson was always going to treat the process as an exercise in fire fighting. I'm not sure it would be predictable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Oct 8, 2021 18:01:12 GMT
When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.
the old git will be a bit tough and bitter... Meat can be tenderised with a hammer. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Oct 8, 2021 18:44:45 GMT
In more sombre news, James Brokenshire has died from lung cancer. 'Prime Minister Boris Johnson described the father of three, a former Northern Ireland secretary, as the "nicest, kindest" colleague.' That would be Boris "never mind cancer" Johnson, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Oct 8, 2021 18:59:57 GMT
You don't think there is a logic that if you lower taxes it stimulates growth and and investment. To my perception, because trickle down must work some of the time but less and .less due to globalisation it has resulted that you can move production outside our legal jurisdiction and the relationship between the elites and the working class has been broken Trump saw this as an issue which resulted clumsy tariffs that served no purpose but to vindicate his opponents. The richest people and businesses pay very low taxes. How’s that working for everyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 8, 2021 19:30:39 GMT
If you think that we live in a world where Dyson can move his production operation to a different country probably incentivised by tax and my clumsy way of articulating, but am I getting that wrong as being an example of low taxation facilitating growth. Dyson will have probably left thousands of UK jobs. My argument is trickle down economics where you boost investment with tax breaks makes sense to me.
My opinion is that the reality is going to be nuanced and far more complicated than the absolutes on both sides of the fence choose to propagate as we stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Oct 8, 2021 20:12:55 GMT
His move was about more than direct tax, there were wages, operating costs, import/export taxes etc. access to skills and markets.
The low taxation may have moved some jobs there but the main person that benefits is him and the others at the top, not the workers, and so the money doesn’t trickle down more, just somewhere else. It’s a race to the bottom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 8, 2021 20:26:08 GMT
Fair enough, I didn't follow his move
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Oct 8, 2021 20:36:51 GMT
If you think that we live in a world where Dyson can move his production operation to a different country probably incentivised by tax Greed. Not tax, greed. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 8, 2021 21:04:01 GMT
What do you do if your market competitors are killing you and they had taken advantage of out sourcing?
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Oct 8, 2021 21:26:08 GMT
My opinion is that the reality is going to be nuanced and far more complicated than the absolutes on both sides of the fence choose to propagate as we stand. Neither of these positions are absolutes. The absolutes would be "Marxian economics" and "laissez-faire capitalism". Supply side economics (aka trickle down) and Keynesian economics are two stances that are somewhat in the middle of these two absolutes - with the qualifying difference that Keynesian economic leans slightly more towards the centre, whilst supply side is much closer to laissez-faire. Both are still capitalist ways of looking at how economics should be organized, and both have been extensively tried and researched. Keynesian economics has often been referred to as the `post war consensus`, whilst supply side has often been called `reaganomics`. Both of these theories have already existed for decades (Keynesian has been around for nearly a century now!), and the nuances and complexities are pretty well understood.
This isn't a discussion about how two hypotheticals are going to be like in reality - we already have seen the realities in which these two economic theories exist. To equate them as equal hypotheticals is itself an un-nuanced and simplistic way of looking at things - and completely ignores both all the possible variations that are further towards communism on one hand, and ignores that after supply side economics, you basically only have laissez-faire capitalism and that's it. It ignores that Keynesian already is a relatively middle-ground solution that arose after the great depression between the laissez-faire economics that lead to it and the looming threat of socialist revolution in response to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 8, 2021 21:45:28 GMT
No that's not what you said. You conceded that it doesn't work, and now that it doesn't work you are arguing an absolute position in debate unless you concede that it is nuanced and may manifest positive and negative contexts a
|
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Oct 8, 2021 22:28:47 GMT
Dan Price, and everyone working for him, seems to have done alright. It's a utopian outlier, sure, but the system definitely does not have to result in 90% of the labour going into the CEO/Shareholder's pockets
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Oct 8, 2021 23:16:06 GMT
What do you do if your market competitors are killing you and they had taken advantage of out sourcing? Dyson is worth nearly 10 billion. 10 thousand millions. His market competitors weren't killing him. You seem to be bending over backwards to justify already vastly wealthy people doing anything they can to stuff yet more money into their own pockets at the expense of employees whose entire lifetime income they could blow on a whim and not even notice. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 8, 2021 23:21:24 GMT
Yeah and I meant it as a potential example. I'm not an expert by any means only I required an example of a company that had outsourced. Although to be honest it's pretty clear the point I was trying to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Oct 8, 2021 23:43:43 GMT
Not really. You keep saying that trickle down must work sometimes without giving any examples, then you say that businesses have to outsource to survive while giving an example that doesn't show that at all. I'm really not trying to have a go at you personally, I just don't think you're making your case at all credibly.
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Oct 8, 2021 23:53:14 GMT
No that's not what you said. You conceded that it doesn't work, and now that it doesn't work you are arguing an absolute position in debate unless you concede that it is nuanced and may manifest positive and negative contexts a Alright, yes, if you look purely at the notion of "Does supply side economics work or not work" then yes, my argument could be called absolutist in the sense that yes, it doesn't work. But this isn't just my argument: When you look at the past 40 years of supply side economics being applied, there are clear metrics you can use: Was cutting the tax rate offset by massive economic growth as promised? No. Did cutting the tax rates lead to wealth trickling down to the poorer classes as promised? No. I'd argue that that is a nuanced and sophisticated stance: It is looking at the data that is out there by virtue of the past 40 years of history, by experiments conducted in several places, thanks to scientific research after the fact. It's an 'absolutist' stance, but it's as absolutist as stating that the earth is an oblate spheroid - it's backed by many, many scientific observations. Arguing that "it might be more complicated and may manifest positive and negative contexts" is as simplistic and unnuanced as stating that the earth might flat in certain contexts or that vaccines might cause autism - arriving to those positions requires ignoring all the evidence and argumentation that points towards certain conclusions in favour of adopting a seemingly "neutral" stance. But therein lies the false equivalence: You don't find neutrality when you position yourself between a neutral observation and an extremist ideology. This isn't Far Cry.
And that's important because ultimately what we're talking about here exists in a broader context, and in that context the notion that "trickle down economics works" is a ideological position adopted by governments that are increasingly far right to the point that they make Clement Attlee look like a centrist. It's a process known as "Shifiting the overton window". If people spend exhaustive amounts of time explaining how Trump is a lair, a lot of people are just going to assume that the truth is in the middle of those two positions, despite, well, the extremely detailed and nuanced explanations that go into why he is lying about whatever the topic of the day is.
And here I have fallen into that same trap, becuase what hasn't been done throughout this past couple of pages is talking about how supply-side economics is a lie dreamt up by far right ideologues, and I have not talked about the various economic models that actually have some truth behind it (except Keynesian, but that's hardly the only one).
|
|
Lizard
Junior Member
I love ploughmans
Posts: 4,489
|
Post by Lizard on Oct 9, 2021 2:32:19 GMT
Only the most naïve economist or politician would believe in trickle down as a practical policy. I suspect most that promote it don't care whether it works or not, it's a grift to them, a trojan horse for the low-tax, laissez-faire fiscal policies that benefit the wealthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by technoish on Oct 9, 2021 7:46:33 GMT
Business outsourcing and using international supply chains etc to increase profit margin is is very different to the issue of whether or not you should be taxing the rich more or not and the impact that is supposed to have.
The business could be owned by lots of smaller shareholders or pension funds Vs one single billionaire.
You have to separate out the assets/profitability of companies and the massive wealth and power of individuals.
Big companies can do bad things (technical term) but that is different to the useless amalgamation and concentration of wealth in a small number of individuals.
As has been pointed out, the super rich just keep amassing more and more, getting more power and increasing their ability to rig game, and they spend less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Oct 9, 2021 7:59:20 GMT
You could take half the money the top 100 wealthiest people in the world have and it wouldn’t impact them but would significantly change the lives of billions. When that’s the situation then it’s pretty clear the worlds approach to economics is completely wrong.
At the very least you would hope those that have made billions would be trying to improve the world by that point, not just trying to make even more.
|
|
sport✅
Junior Member
notice me senpai
I want to claim my tits
Posts: 2,318
|
Post by sport✅ on Oct 9, 2021 8:09:26 GMT
It's like my dad always said "The grabbing hands grab all they can, all for themselves, after all, it's a competitive world."
|
|
X201
Full Member
Posts: 5,128
|
Post by X201 on Oct 9, 2021 8:25:08 GMT
|
|
