I prefer to say that as a player, the president sits among us all in the audience. How many of us got that dreaded call at the end of the shift from the president who announced he laid us off? How many of us lost cash in the economy which we know was lost because the President cut us loose and told our bank to lose our money? Come on, dirty politics blames presidents for things they don't even consider doing. Who believes President Bush willed the country into some sort of poor economy and he and advisers sat around BSing how they could bust our chops and ruin our economy?
there is trickle down capitalism (eg130 million iphones trickle down) or trickle down welfare that cripples people by discouraging them from working. Which is better?
A little? More like a lot. See here: For those who don't know how to read infographics: The bottom 90% of our nation's population have the same total Net Household Wealth* equivalent to that of the upper 0.1% (of population). If that makes perfectly good-sense to you, then you are likely in that upper 1.0% ... *And, so, what is "Wealth", given that two definitions are often employed? (Wealth and Net Worth".) Its economic sense is this (from here):
Those numbers of course are huge liberal lies because they don’t include the trillions of dollars in wealth that the bottom 90% get from various welfare entitlement programs every year. And since Americans don’t like to save money like for example the Chinese do even though they far poorer it only makes sense that the bottom 90% have a little wealth but it is by choice.
false?? Gates Jobs Brin Bezos get rich only as long as their great new inventions trickle down to everyone. That's the pure beauty of Republican capitalism. It's fundamentally about raising others' standard of living. Really, all you have to do is work at McDonalds and even then most of the great new inventions trickle down to you.
Trickle down isn't based on any sound economics. Reference to entrepreneurial behaviour, for example, cannot be used as we know self-employment is higher in social democratic countries. The big cheese was supply side economics. That fed off neo-Keynesianism, structuring its contribution around the notion of a vertical Phillips Curve and the need for labour market flexibility to reduce the natural rate of unemployment. That stuff, despite being intellectually simplistic, was dull as dishwater and couldn't be used to manipulate Johnny Pleb. The 'trickle down' narrative had therefore to be employed. So it wasn't even any great economic shakes, it was just a means to allow conservatism to go unchallenged.
trickle down is really flood down eg 100 million smart phone super computers in America. Now that's sound economics!! See how easily liberalism is defeated?
yes!! it taught us that we got from Stone Age to here thanks to supply of Republican inventions, not libcommie manipulation of the market.
actually trickle down , capitalism, supply side were/are all successfully challenged which why the world is more libcommie everyday. Keep trying eventually you'll get one right!
There's no actual economics behind trickle down. The economics focuses on supply side economics, itself a minor corruption of orthodox microeconomics such as labour supply theory. Trickle down is a soundbite purely to set a narrative capable of manipulating the gullible.
capitalism is actual economics. Steve Jobs invents the Iphone and it trickles down to 100 million Americans via capitalist methods. Now do you see the beauty of Republican trickle down capitalism? Libcommies tried to lie and say nothing trickled down while 100 million Americans had smartphone supercomuters that had trickled into their pockets. How stupid was that? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
yes inefficient while socialism slowly killed 120 million human souls to demonstrate its efficiency!!
Are you under the mistaken impression that you are posting on a message board rather than a debate forum?
National Socialism is not socialist statism? Soviet Socialism(USSR) is not socialist statism? Red China was not socialist Statism? Cuba is not socialist statism? Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist statist?? Socialism entails the state; America entails freedom from the state and oddly America is the greatest country in human history while USSR, Red China, Cuba are among the very worst countries in human history. Why do liberals have such a fascination with this death cult? Is it any wonder that liberals are increasingly violent and opposed to free speech?
Nope. It is nazism. It has nothing to do with socialism State capitalism! Socialists have a long history of attacking these regimes. He uses the socialist tag but he's really a social democrat. He would have defeated Trump the corporate id'jut mind you. This merely confirms that you don't understand socialism. It encompasses market and anarchist forms, where the state is powerless compared to what you support in capitalism. How many people has America killed through its war machine?
Wrong again! See, for example, Buchheim and Scherner (2007, The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry, Journal of Economic History, Vol 66, pp 390-416): Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.
