Forums | MacLife

I coulda sworn "trickle-down" was tried once or twice before, and resulted in high interest rates, high unemployment and massive deficits.

I coulda sworn "trickle-down" was tried once or twice before, and resulted in high interest rates, high unemployment and massive deficits.

How do you figure?  You don't honestly believe that new economic policies have immediate impact on the economy, do you?  eg we are just now beginning to see the affects of increased trade with China in the US, and Clinton put those policies in order years ago.

I coulda sworn "trickle-down" was tried once or twice before, and resulted in high interest rates, high unemployment and massive deficits.

How do you figure?  You don't honestly believe that new economic policies have immediate impact on the economy, do you?  eg we are just now beginning to see the affects of increased trade with China in the US, and Clinton put those policies in order years ago.

Wow. You seem to have forgotten the late eighties, early nineties, when Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush's "trickle-down" economic policies resulted in a nation-wide recession, rampant inflation, and huge government deficits. It's a pity we don't learn from our mistakes.

Wow.  And you think that just because Clinton got elected it all just instantly got better?  What exactly did this magic President do to heal the economic ailments that you describe?

Wow.  And you think that just because Clinton got elected it all just instantly got better?  What exactly did this magic President do to heal the economic ailments that you describe?

In addition to balancing the budget, he also inherited the post-war boom from our first conflict in Iraq, which gave the economy a healthy shot in the arm.* Perhaps G. W. Bush is factoring his grudge match with Saddam into his economic plan, but I certainly hope not.

The point being that historically, "trickle-down" economics doesn't work. If you want a tree to grow, you water the roots, not the leaves.


* - Watch... the thread will self-destruct into yet another Iraq tangent.

Wow. You seem to have forgotten the late eighties, early nineties, when Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush's "trickle-down" economic policies resulted in a nation-wide recession, rampant inflation, and huge government deficits. It's a pity we don't learn from our mistakes.

Nation-wide recession?  The one that lasted just over one year?    Rampant inflation?  What???  The only thing you're right about is the deficits, and you have yet to explain why deficits are bad. It's also a matter of debate as to whether tax cuts cause deficits, when it is the COMBINATION of high spending and lower tax revenues that leads to higher deficits.  Then there's the point that a lower rate of taxation can actually INCREASE tax revenues, thereby reducing deficits.

Well, Iraq's WMD.... oh wait.

He "balanced the budget" eh?  Don't you think that's a little vague?  I agree that the post War stimulus certainly was a boon, as was the drastically over inflated value of tech stocks, but seriously, what did Clinton do to help the economy?

I reject the notion that war is a stimulus.  Second, Clinton did, to some degree, promote freer trade.  Other than that, he did very little, which is good.  Economies don't need stimuli and new federal programs to grow.  If the institutions allow it, they just grow.

what did Clinton do to help the economy?

First, I must ask, what economy are you asking about? OPEC's? The Military-Industrial Complex's? Seriously what economy?

Second, Clinton did, to some degree, promote freer trade.  Other than that, he did very little, which is good.  Economies don't need stimuli and new federal programs to grow.  If the institutions allow it, they just grow.

While I tend to agree, I do have a question for you.  How do you feel that freeing up trade with China will affect the US economy?  Given the different natures of the 2 countries, wont this freeing up of trade ultimately bleed money from the US to China and depress the US economy?

wont this freeing up of trade ultimately bleed money from the US to China and depress the US economy?

That assumes that a trade deficit is an economic problem.  If that were so, I suppose it'd follow that banning imports would be an economic good, or that the fact that you maintain a "trade deficit" with respect to your local grocery store (i.e., your money flows to it, but its money doesn't flow to you) poses a problem.  Neither are true, of course. 

The fear of trade deficits is a holdover from the old and obsolete mercantilist theories of economics, which hold that the objective of international trade is to hoard as much money as is possible in your own nation.  But that assumes that money is somehow the absolute form of wealth.  In fact, it's merely one type of wealth.  Consumer goods are another.

wont this freeing up of trade ultimately bleed money from the US to China and depress the US economy?

That assumes that a trade deficit is an economic problem.  If that were so, I suppose it'd follow that banning imports would be an economic good, or that the fact that you maintain a "trade deficit" with respect to your local grocery store (i.e., your money flows to it, but its money doesn't flow to you) poses a problem.  Neither are true, of course. 

The fear of trade deficits is a holdover from the old and obsolete mercantilist theories of economics, which hold that the objective of international trade is to hoard as much money as is possible in your own nation.  But that assumes that money is somehow the absolute form of wealth.  In fact, it's merely one type of wealth.  Consumer goods are another.

I understand that, in theory.  I just don't see how it can work.  As we buy more Chinese goods, won't the US ultimately just end up with a lot of crappy, used, broken consumer goods?  All the while filling the Chinese economy with wealth to do whatever they want with?

edit:  I didn't see freecat's reply.  It made some sense to me.  It's still a little abstract, but it's a little more solid to me. Thanks.

in which case it would be worthwhile

To/for whom? I mean do you literally find that people are only for and only want "cheap" - "cheap" at any cost?

Whoopdy frik'n doo. A nobel prize has about as much credibility as a grammy award. The nobel prize is awarded on the basis of politics, with no merit with respect to scientific research.

That may very well be true, but read the first line again, here it is for your convinience:
"More than 400 economists, led by 10 Nobel prize winners,"

here's a clue, take away: "led by 10 Nobel prize winners", and whaddya get left with?

cos, you know, that's what struck me about the piece.

And how many economists are there in the world? Its like saying 400 walmart customers dont like their policies. Wow, big deal

I kinda quit paying attention to Nobel prizes when Arafat was awarded a peace prize.

But Kissinger was A-Okay?  Geez.

Logical fallacy.  I never said Kissinger was OK, but feel free to continue making assumptions.

You claimed you stopped paying attention to the Nobel prizes when Arafat was awarded. This means that you did pay attention before he was awarded the prize, at a time when Kissinger had been awarded the prize.  Kissinger's prize did not make you lose faith in the prize, while Arafat's did.
Oh, and stop trying to be clever. Just call me names if you want to, instead of little boldface crap.