Percolate UP Economics (Not Trickle Down)

A couple of months ago, a thread appeared talking about trickle down economics. And the thread went through it's whole tank of 500 posts. But it what it was talking about (a million pennies being spent) was really Percolate Up Economics, not trickle down.

Trickle down is when business get some extra $$$ (from tax cuts or some cost cutting), and the theory goes that this will stimulate the business into reinvesting more money and hiring more people.

Percolate up economics is when the public gets more money, and thereby goes into the store and spends it, getting that money up into the businesses by way of sale$$$.

http://www.perc-up.org/

http://anonymousbanker.com/?p=132

http://thehill.com/special-reports/...cit-reduction-plan-put-americans-back-to-work

 

PS - Although some people (younger ones) may think Percolate Up Economics is a new term, I first heard it from Hubert H. Humphrey in 1968, when he was the Democratic candidate for US President. It goes back even further though to FDR, and was inspired by the percolator coffeemakers which haven't been around since the 1970s.

 

That's the same theory the Democrats used with the stimulus.

Trickle down is when business get some extra $$$ (from tax cuts, some cost cutting or business from a government contract)

That's the way it should read.

 

To strengthen the economy consumers need to save, not spend. That's what saved the US economy from the first Great Depression.

Eliminate central banks and fractional reserve banking and let the market, and consumers, decide what is in their own best interest.

So if the public needs more money, where will it come from? I suggest eliminating coercive tax policies.

 

Hahahahaha, this is way too funny! So people need to stop spending money to strengthen the economy??? That doesn't even make the slightest bit of logical sense.

 

Of course, to you it wouldn't. The facts speak for themselves, saving money saved the US economy from the Great Depression.

The state has no place dictating monetary and fiscal policy. Central planning has been disastrous from it's conception.

 

You are just making stuff up. Saving money did not save the US economy from the Great Depression. That is absolutely illogical, lol.

You fail at basic math.

 

Economics has nothing to do with math, you fail at basic economics.

Learn history, then you might not support the failed policies of the past.

 

So if it has nothing to do with math than how do you know what works or what doesn't? Do you just say things and tell people "it will work because I say it will".

Saving money leading to economic growth is illogical. Especially when what we consider growth deals purely in mathematics.

 

It does seem more intuitive that spending will grow the economy and saving will not.

Anyway. Foundation economy. Percolate up. I dig that idea and I think it should (and does) work very well.

 

The market decides and the market corrects itself for the blunders of central planning.

Economics is simply people doing what is in their best interest. If there were a science behind it, it would be praxeology, or the study of human action.

Saving money creates REAL lower interest rates, not the rates dreamed up by the Fed. Real lower interest rates stimulate the economy.

 

Lol, what does saving money have to do with lowering interest rates? So you are saying that when people save money, which causes less income, that money will be cheaper to borrow? More illogical nonsense coming from the Austrian's.

Must be fun to just make stuff up!

 

If you are talking about govt stimulus or what they call Keynesian economics, Obama's efforts have proven it doesn't work either.

 

No it didn't. You are just making things up again. The stimulus created plenty of jobs and stopped the bleeding of the economy. Facts and data are not on your side. Which is common for conservatives.

 

Yeah, that's why our economy has been slumping since GW Bush started the stimulus spending.

It didn't work for him, and it hasn't worked for Obama.

I do agree that people need control of their own money, but if you are talking about increasing taxes and wealth redistribution, forget it. It's not what this country stands for.

 

There is your version of the facts and there is reality. And I'm not asking to raise taxes for wealth redistribution.

 

I call it trickle up brokeness vs trickle down economics.

Once the broke butt americans have no money for capitalist to grab, they will leave us alone.

 

If govt stimulus is so productive, then where are the jobs?

The best thing the govt can do to stimulate the economy is get out of the way.

 

We were losing almost 700,000 jobs a month before the stimulus. You guys simply do not use facts and buy in to all the conservative media rhetoric you can. "Where are the jobs". Go look at the data and see where the jobs are.

 

1st of all, the unemployment rate is still very high. Secondly, you can't prove your argument without addressing what would have been without the govt stimulus.

 

The unemployment rate is the only thing you guys have. That is why that is talked about on Fox News every other minute.

These are actual jobs created...

Now let me ask you... give me one logical reason why the stimulus would cause MORE unemployment. Cause that is not very logical if you understand how the economy works.

 

let me get this straight, poor people giving their pennies to rich people will help them become successful? So its necessary to concentrate all the money at the top, and leave nothing at the bottom?

 

Just a point to back up hoytmonger's posts (I put akphidelt on ignore: it was no longer worth it to hear the "you fail at basic math" or "that's just your subjective opinion" crap anymore - the guy isn't interested in alternative viewpoints; just his own):

Our country needs to build up personal savings. One of the reasons that MMT acolytes like akphidelt here have driven us to economic ruin - apart from promoting acting as a crack dealer to a clearly addicted spend-a-holic Government through printing unlimited dollars and claiming that it isn't the responsibility of the FED - is because his addled policy claims that "maximizing productivity" means that no one should save any money - as his post above obviously says.

His own monetary theory demands that money remain "moving", so as to ensure the highest velocity possible, and so that the value of each individual dollar is working to appreciate, not remain stagnant, or depreciate.

This is why those with lots of money are at a huge advantage compared to other classes in his system; that was one of the largest reason I believed that we're getting such class separation.

Well: here's another problem. Savings evens out volatility. Those with solid savings tend to spend more predictably, because their next purchase isn't predicated upon their next paycheck. In addition, savings begets more savings, through interest accrual; through investment return.

Savings is clearly critical to the psychology of each individual participant in our economy: without that personal safety net, each person is far more prone to settle for the "each of us are each other's safety net" - and that's one of several reasons I've given why I so vehemently oppose this monetary theory.

It supports moves to Communism. Try to disagree with me - I dare you to attempt to make sense.

Akphidelt and posters like him (thank God there are only a few, only he and 17thandK come to mind in terms of the rancorous "I clearly know more than you on the economy" style) who espouse this view actively do not want to promote savings.

Savings, of course, is independence. Independence is anathema to Communism.

Those with plenty of savings aren't nearly so prone to buy the "you need Big Government to help you" line; aren't nearly so worried about extending unemployment benefits to a 3rd year; aren't nearly so susceptible to the politics of class envy - politics their policies themselves create.

We're filling our daily stock market reports with artificial spikes, not unlike a defribrillator's spikes on an EKG when applied to a heart attack victim. Do you think this is real, or sustained? No. We're a sick patient who's had its independence (our savings) stripped from us in a way we haven't felt since the Great Depression.

This thread is about "percolate up" economics. I call that more BS as well; that approach means that - somehow - all the spenders in this country are supposed to get some money (ostensibly it's created out of thin air again: printed) - and that means that all those producers at the top are going to make long range plans to ramp up production again, and - viola! - we're back up and running again.

Hell no. I'm a small businessman, and speaking as a rather successful one, I can tell you that NO savvy businessman EVER makes plans based upon artificially injected economic stimuli; we need to see something which can sustain.

Krugman's bleat: "the problem with the stimulus is that it wasn't big enough" is based upon his subconscious understanding of this fact. The problem is that if it is fundamentally unwise for a businessman to again invest in production based upon artificial economic stimuli, it is equally unwise - and risky - to do so knowing that the economic activity isn't based upon creating real wealth production machines - and it doesn't matter to the real businessman how large the stimulus is: the smart businessman knows how damaging debt and inflation is.

MMT isn't real.

These MMT types actually believe that they can replace the value of real equity-creating work with printing dollars as a means to promote economic activity.

They cannot.

The only way that growth that will occur is if the business community as a group - as an overwhelming majority opinion - starts to hear policy coming out of Washington that sounds the "all clear" signal for job producers. That means fundamentally sound (from the businessman's POV) pro-business/pro-economy action: meaningful evacuations of anti-business policy like ObamaCare; substantive dismantling of increasing punitive and puerile business and reporting regulations, and significant tax breaks, at the minimum at the corporate level.

You want answers, MMT-acolytes? You now have them. Don't bother to respond with objections; the business community doesn't believe your ideology, and will not move to actually create free market wealth building again. Sure, you may be able to prompt some BS Solyndra-type action with your printing presses running on tilt for a while, but - in the end - you'll bankrupt us, and ruin the American way of life eventually.

The biggest worry I have is at some of you want that exact thing.

The same ones who understand that this monetary approach is Communism's way through and past the American economy.

Merry Christmas to all who believe in the America I believe in, and in the God in which I believe. To the rest of you: have a nice day, and I will defeat you eventually.

 

I love it when people talk about me that have me on ignore! How cowardly!

 

Notice how there is not a SINGLE number, fact, graph, stat, accounting, or any piece of data to back this claim. Just tons of subjective viewpoints that mean nothing. This is why us poor MMT types that deal with actual realities have trouble communicating with people like Subdermal and most on this forum. You guys present philosophical arguments with no data to back them.

It's impossible to argue accounting with someone who doesn't believe in accounting. It's impossible to argue that savings hurt the economy with someone who doesn't believe in math. It's literally impossible to argue with people who can't quantify or explain their points of view with data.