No duh. This is a strike against the fact this works on multiple levels of the economy instead of just the top how?
Because of transaction costs, dipshit. There are frictional costs incurred at every stage of the redistribution process – collection, reallocation, consumption, and finally, investment.
Again, you pretend there's a money hole for consumption. Trickle Up would induce more consumption and, since the money will make it to the upper echelons, induce more investment. I explained this, but you're going to lie.
Trickle-up induces
less investment, since the money is first filtered by other actors before it reaches firms.
Nobody’s pretending there is a “money hole for consumption” – but there
are depreciations that take place along the way before that money reaches the end investor. If there weren’t, then there wouldn’t be a question of whether there are economic policy options, since every policy would ultimately have the same effect.
So this refutes providing a large scale tax break to the lowest earners how? Oh yea, it doesn't: It is simply normal Tiger-Man logic that if you ignore a chunk of the argument and focus on a minor part, you can defeat the whole thing by knocking over straw.
It denies an entire pillar of his original argument, you dishonest fuck. It’s a rebuttal to
one element, not the whole thing.
Re-fucking-tard. Money doesn't disappear once spent on consumption, you pathetic little monkey. It is now in the hands of the retailer, who then spends money to replenish their stores. The money is now in the hands of the producers, part of which flaps up the chain to the investors. But again, this is basic objective reality. It's not surprising you can't get it.
But, as every economist knows, investment is preferable to consumption in the long term, since it provides for greater wealth down the road.
Again, you strawman the argument from 'Tax breaks and some programs' into 'Just welfare' and pretend this is logical. Go play in traffic, troll.
It was an entire element of his argument. It’s not my fault you can’t find an excuse for him.
Whoop de shit. This is a strike against the fact this works on multiple levels of the economy instead of just the top how?
Evidence that consumption is an inferior means of developing the economy as compared to investment/savings, moron.
That's the thing, retard boy. The poverty level workers of the world don't have much savings, the top ten percent do. This allows the money to spend more time working on improving the economy(You are acquainted with reality sufficiently to understand that more people buying stuff is good for the economy, right? Or are you still out to lunch that badly?), instead of instantly vanishing into a rich guy's bank account.
First you argue there is no “money hole” when poor people consume, but that there
is a money hole if money is ever in the proximity of anyone wealthy. Choose a side and stick to it.
Again with the strawman, again Axis thinks this proves something when he knocks over straw. It's pitiful to watch. As for the investment yield being lower, yes.. But the economy has been stimulated on more than just the investment level by the end of the day.
Investment being preferable to consumption, we should usually aim for it to be higher – especially now, when we have a dirth of savings in the economy.
Which do the exact same thing. But hey, be pedantic.
Firms reinvest to remain competitive; this idea that the wealthy “sit” on their funds anymore than anybody else is utterly baseless.
Quite. When money ascends through the whole structure, you get more 'mileage' than just stirring up the flow at the top levels. Sort of the difference between cleaning water by pumping cleaner up from the bottom, and just making a film of soap on the top.
And yet, in the end, less water comes out, some having leaked along the way or been collected by less efficient users (i.e. government).
OK, maybe you'll catch it this time around. The money spent in consumption does not mystically disappear. It goes into the pockets of the suppliers. Quit acting like the investors aren't seeing (at the very least) most of this money.
That’s the point, idiot. We
want investors to see
virtually all of it, because when they do, they expand operations.
Except that I will have increased demand as well. Whoops, ignored that rather heroically didnt ya? You know what? Since you seem to be harping on one little niggling aspect of my arguement (the welfare part) lets ditch it. New proposal: No taxes, income or payroll, on anyone making less that $60,000 / year. There go your cost of tax collection strawmen (and by the way, I would love to see proof that the cost of collecting taxes on an individual goes up if you increase his tax rate, which seems to be what you were saying).
That would be a ridiculous proposition because government income would fall precipitously. This idea that anything beneficial can come from “soaping the rich” is ridiculous, since we rely on the most successful members of our economy to save the most.
Read your macro text again, dumbass. Investment = savings. I think someone just made the point that financial institutions arent hiding this money in a sock, they are investing it. The difference between 100 lower class people collectively investing $1000 and one upper class person investing the same isnt there. Theyre identical.
Then why the fuck do economists debate the long vs. short term effects of saving over consumption, genius?
And I know that conumption is not investment. I know that I know this, because I never said it, you dishonest little weasel. What I was saying is that more money in lower income brackets will increase consumption, which will increase demand (and therefore supply), and the additional revenue in the firms will be used for investment. Also there is Mike's excellent point that upper income investment is much more likely to go into foriegn countries than lower or middle income, such as the Euroyen market or stocks traded on overseas markets.
The resulting investment will be
lower than it might have been had government never undertaken redistribution at all – and the ultimate impact will
still be greater job creation.
Furthermore, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing Americans to invest in foreign business, since we tax that income, and since, America being a leading economic powerhouse, it still attracts a significant fraction of that investment in the most lucrative sectors anyway.
