Percolate UP Economics (Not Trickle Down)

That's what I just said in the OP.

 

FALSE ! Consumers saving doesn't do anything but deprive the economy of the money it needs to pump back up again. The economy (the stores) need sales.

 

That is NOT false.

We need savings first. Spending will come later. Your willingness to skip that critical step will simply land us in a still deeper hole later - and not that much later, either.

 

That's about as far from getting it straight as you can get. Percolate up economics means putting more money into the pockets of the poor and middle class, so they can go to the stores (AKA the US economy) and buy the stuff they're selling. Then, from that increase in SALE$$$$$, the stores (AKA the economy) can grow. Get it ?

PS - to get the unemployment rate down, increase taxes on the rich, with that money, create jobs in ICE, CBP, and immigration courts/jails. Arrest illegal aliens and illegal employers, and when the working illegals are gone, 8 million jobs will have been "created". Also, quit dispensing 150,000 work visas per month, and a lot more jobs will be available to AMERICANS, who will spend their wages in AMERICAN stores, not send the money out of the country ($25 Billion/year being lost to Mexico alone).

 

I couldn't disagree more. See post # 29.

 

This is called "common sense" economics. Good luck trying to get these people to use common sense.

They still believe the wealthy aren't rich enough to create jobs and that they need more money so they can produce more goods that no one can buy, lol.

 

We know what it means, but there is no way to "put money in the hands of the poor and middle class" until they have sustainable jobs.

The momentum which will create lasting growth was described in my long post.

We do not need, nor should we promote, high taxation in this country. On anyone.

 

Lol, there is not a single mathematical formula you can use to demonstrate why an economy in a recession needs to save money. That is beyond illogical.

 

Do we continue borrowing to keep distributing dollars to consumers? How long do you think this priming of the distribution pump will take before wealth can be grown at a rate that can sustain the jobs artificially created by stimulus? Can the debt eventually be reduced to a point where it is not a risk to future wealth creation? Why do you believe that saving deprives the economy of wealth?(you said money, but I assume you mean economic capital)

 

Why is the debt risking our future wealth creation?

 

simple answer;

the larger the debt,

the more interest we pay.

You see.

hence, when the debt reaches a certain level you will

only be payig the interest.

If you want to feel what that is like

Get a credit card

max it out, and only pay the interest.

 

I can't see akphidelt's posts, of course, but...does anyone get the feeling that phidelt is about to blow an artery trying to support his failed monetary ideology?

Almost like getting paid to do so?

 

Also, the larget the debt

the larget the money you owe for interest.


You Dig?

 

No amout of money will satisfy the wealthy. The money will go to where they spend it and stash it: Morroco for dinner, german made lear jet, Switzerland for shopping, and Tiland for ladyboys with blue hats. And what's on the schedule for tommorow? LOL...

 

Yeah, I wasn't necessarily talking to you. We have had this discussion before. You left the rails of intelligent banter several times. I was addressing the thread author.

 

Real American factories have used this down economy to streemline their production and services. Less workers to build more products and better services. No "new jobs" will come about, unless someone can capitalize on someone making money. And I think we are all ready maxed out on that.

All the while, the corporate monopolies are starting companies where ever in the world they are allowed. So they are not taking jobs with them, they are taking employees with them to manage and create industries in those countries.

Why? you ask. Because those countries do not have the capitalistic overhead the USA does. They will pay more corporate tax in some of those countries, but the tax and fees add up to less than operating in the USA with overhead of unions, insurance, workers comp, inspection fees, and health fees, accounting fees, risk managers, legal aid, shipping cost, storage cost, transportation cost, licensing fees,etc..., and other sub-contracted employers and their massive leaches of capital over head.

sure, hard for the simple mind to grasp the large scope of things. But just because they don't understand it, does not mean this is not happening. Just means that they can only see the petty arguments of two single economic factors and how it plays off on eachother.

 

Yeah, we know, and the obvious solution is for Government to take over all of the functions we currently place on employers like health insurance and retirement to reduce overhead.

The problem is, Government (*)(*)(*)(*)s everything up and is completely and totally untrustworth to oversee anything at all, which means we need to return to a more laissez faire model regardless of the moral and social consequences. Drop any and all social justice requirements from the backs of employers and leave workers to either sink or swim on their own.

The choice is:

Private Sector jobs and very little social justice

or

The Majority of the workers in America are employed by an overpowerful and highly incompentent Government that we cannot trust! A world where that extreme minority of Americans with exceptional merit are forced to provide for a majority that has none.

The days of either/and politics are over. We need to make a choice. Either a society of permanent 10% unemployment that lives on a perpetual welfare system and never get off, or a "cruel, immoral" laissez faire economy where everyone is forced to work or die.

 

And not a dime of it going back into the US economy. That's why giving money to the rich is a bad idea fr the economy. The poor and middle class, in contrast spend their money in their own local communities (in the USA). Many lower (economic) class people have never been outside the US in their whole lives.

 

Sure there's a way to put money in the hands of the poor and middle class. By giving them jobs working for the government. Lots of things are needed. ICE & CBP agents. Immigration courts & jails. Infrastructure repairs (decades worth of those). More cops and security cameras to fight crime. Homeless shelters, animal shelters, etc, etc.

Now, how to pay for it all. Restore the normal taxation of the past and get out of this current abnormal period of low taxation on the rich. Some government waste can be eliminated as well.

 

1. No we don't continue borrowing. We restore taxation on the rich to its normal rates. Over most of the past 95 years, taxes on the rich were never less than 70% and were as high as 94%. They were 91-92% for 13 straight years (1951- 1963). I would recommend 75-80% on the top brackets.


2, Yes, debt can be reduced to where it's not a risk (but it would take a few years to do).

3. Saving deprives the economy of wealth, because people spending $$$ in the stores (AKA the economy) is what fuels the economy's growth. Holding that money back does the reverse. It starves the economy.

 

Taxation at those levels is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tyrannical!

 

So you're saying that in most of the past 95 years, the US government has imposed tyranny on the American people ? That's a stretccccccccchhhhh.

 

How about this, we tell two parent house holds that one parent should stay home, that should net us 20-30 million jobs overnight.

 

True, the smilpe mids of those who banter their political will randomly show that they have no real understanding of how money flows. But you are correct. Money goes sideways, not down.

 

Exactly, you understand totaly. LOL......