Economics Lesson

[Dave Roberts]

This seems pretty much how things work:

[ET]

Except that there's no such concept in economics known as "trickle down". It doesn't exist. Feel free to try to locate it in an economics textbook.

If this is "the way we're told it works", then I have to ask how the fluid gets in the bottle in the first place. Who put it there? How did it get in the bottle? What happens when the bottle runs dry? Is there another bottle?

But, hey, the OWS folks aren't the sharpest tools in the shed in the first place.

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said, "When the economic tide rises, all boats rise." Guess that was replaced by greed at the top.

[ET]

[William Thornton]

I count three home runs by ET.

[Sandy]

The only problem is that ET's info doesn't match what we're talking about, but that's par for the course. Not even close. Same old subterfuge when it comes to conservatives talking economic policy. Reality is so hard for them to grasp.

[William Thornton]

[Sandy]

Did you even look at the facebook post, William? ET isn't even in the ballpark. He missed the point completely.

[William Thornton]

Yeah, I looked at it. You guys attempted to use familiar quotes and the people who used them in your argument. ET hit those softballs out of the park partly by noting errors of attribution. I thought the whole thing amusing, including the cartoon.

Let this be a lesson that trickles down and lifts your boat, bro.

[Dave Roberts]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

The caricature was of Reaganomics, and its effect on current Republican economic policy, it had nothing to do with whoever may have used the term in a galaxy long, long ago. That's subterfuge to ignore the point. My attribution to Baldridge was right on target, the media caught it, along with his inability to understand its faults and failures, and what it meant to the middle class. Reaganomics was Trickle Down Economics, and Paul Ryan and Co. have cherished it like inerrant scripture, and convinced the tea party, Rush the Lamebrain and Glenn the Boob, and responses from conservatives here predictably ignore the point.

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

William and David are sitting in the bleachers in this ball park, but the game they're watching is taking place on the field next door. They're not in this game, for sure.

I suggest you go back, actually look at the facebook post, and grasp the concept first, then join the conversation in an intelligent manner, not hit and run, or butt out.

[Dave Roberts]

The problem with the economics of the current way our country works is that working people are not even considered in the equation. Our most prosperous times in the country have been those when wages were high for working people and they could in turn fuel the economy by their purchases of homes, cars, consumer good, and helping their kids also get a good start in life. Those were the times from the 1940's through the 1960's. Executive pay was not nearly the percentage of worker wages that it is now. Part of the problem is that those at the top only need so many houses and so many cars, can only buy so much food and so many TV's. (Okay, so Mitt Romney couldn't remember if his wife had 2 or 3 Cadillac's.) The problem with high growth at the top and stagnant wages at the bottom is that it doesn't cause the economy to work. Indeed, corporations can park billions offshore to avoid US taxes, and the whole country suffers. The present system is unbalanced and unworkable.

[Haruo]

I don't know that working people aren't considered. They do make up a sizable portion of the sources of tax revenue after all.

[David Flick]

[Mrs Haruo]

Ah yes, "trickle down economics". The tower of wine glasses where the ones at the bottom feel more like they were caught in an avalanche of yellow snow.

[Dave Roberts]

[KeithE]

[ET]

[ET]

[ET]

[KeithE]