A Hedge Fund Republic?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Tater,
You do realize that illegal immigration shoots that last paragraph to hell?

I'm for locking up people that hire illegals, and shoot to kill on the border, I'm for fixing that FIRST.

Mookie, "accepted economic theory" pretty much means left-leaning guys in academia.

The real question is if the money is put more effectively into the economy by being spent, or by going through the filter of the government. The government borrows so much, that the overhead just associated with interest on their spending instantly makes it inefficient. Better to not confiscate the moeny, than spend it at XX% on the dollar (even less give all the gov payroll that comes out between collection and expense).

The top 1% makes it sound like you are discussing Oprah and Bill Gates. You're in fact talking about hundreds of thousands of families where wages absolutely = hours worked. Professionals, for example. Every penny they don't pay in taxes will be invested or otherwise spent. They don't have jets, they only sometimes even have a 2d house (in fancy places like Pecos, lol—unlike back east, if someone here has a "cabin"... it's a CABIN). If they lives in CA or NY, they'd be hard-pressed to not spend every penny just to live. Housing is insane in NYC or CA, as ducimus can tell you. It's a million bucks to get a tiny place. 250k in major metro areas is hardly "rich."

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Wow that looks like a fantasy football matchup.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

It works just fine. That's how all economies would be naturally. Any other system is only possible at gunpoint. Black markets are "natural" economies. What do they look like?

My definition of "works" of course is likely different. I have no particular social goal in mind at all other than people get to keep what they earn.

Trickle down works if you assume that everyone is generous, and will share their government "freebies" on the people with less money. As we all know, this is not how the world works. I'd say that just about all of this money ends up accruing interest in an account somewhere (maybe not even in the us) instead of where it should go according to the theory: Main street.

I'm sure the republicans know this, they're not dumb, But they have us just where they want us. Trickle down is just a cover word; an excuse so they can give tax breaks to the rich and powerful who have a huge influence in Washington, but still make it seem like they're helping the average american.

ps.
POST 2000!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Trickle down works if you assume that everyone is generous, and will share their government "freebies" on the people with less money. As we all know, this is not how the world works. I'd say that just about all of this money ends up accruing interest in an account somewhere (maybe not even in the us) instead of where it should go according to the theory: Main street.

I'm sure the republicans know this, they're not dumb, But they have us just where they want us. Trickle down is just a cover word; an excuse so they can give tax breaks to the rich and powerful who have a huge influence in Washington, but still make it seem like they're helping the average american.

ps.
POST 2000!

You spilled red koolaide all over your shirt.

[Ducimus]

Tater, I believe id be more agreeable if i did not think that the middle class is vanishing.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

New Mexico must not have a big of illegal problem as California does then. All i can say is that when im not at work, only half of the people i encounter when im out and about, are speaking english. The other half, spanish. Not 1/4, but HALF.

No, we have a huge illegal problem. HUGE. I just don't hire them if I can possibly avoid it. Michael is originally from NJ. He hires assistants, but never illegals. I pay more, but I'm not a hypocrite.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do. Reroofed, for example. If I picked a roofer without illegals... it would still be raining INSIDE my house. Nothing I could do, it was impossible.

Bottom line is that I would be interested to see the path $1000 takes in the hands of people at the average income for each tax quintile.

BTW, sorta OT, I was listening to a freakanomics podcast today, and they had an interesting study mentioned. They polled people and asked if they could get $2000 in 30 days if they needed to. By any means, borrowing from family, from savings, using a credit card, etc. They picked 2k because that's a typical "emergency" expense (new tranny for car, bonded plumbing fix, need to fly at no notice for sickness or death, etc). Over 50% can't. Only 25% between 100-150k a year income said they could afford that. Oddly, they ended up talking about the lottery, and it turns out that the average lottery player spends... $1000 per year on the lottery.

Think about THAT.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Trickle down works if you assume that everyone is generous, and will share their government "freebies" on the people with less money. As we all know, this is not how the world works. I'd say that just about all of this money ends up accruing interest in an account somewhere (maybe not even in the us) instead of where it should go according to the theory: Main street.
]

LOL.

What freebies? Paying money out of pocket to save poor people's lives because government healthcare MUST be taken, and it pays below cost? Is that a freebie again?

Money sitting around earning interest...

Serious question, do you have any idea how money earns interest?


Hint: Do you have to buy on Main Street (local business tends to be higher end, BTW, cause they cannot compete directly with walmart) to support it? If Ma and Pa on Main Street need credit so that they can pay suppliers on delivery so they can make sales (and pay the money back they borrowed as a bridge), where does the money come from? The bank... where does the bank get the money? How do they pay interest to account holders?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

I'm for locking up people that hire illegals, and shoot to kill on the border, I'm for fixing that FIRST.

Mookie, "accepted economic theory" pretty much means left-leaning guys in academia.

The real question is if the money is put more effectively into the economy by being spent, or by going through the filter of the government. The government borrows so much, that the overhead just associated with interest on their spending instantly makes it inefficient. Better to not confiscate the moeny, than spend it at XX% on the dollar (even less give all the gov payroll that comes out between collection and expense).

The top 1% makes it sound like you are discussing Oprah and Bill Gates. You're in fact talking about hundreds of thousands of families where wages absolutely = hours worked. Professionals, for example. Every penny they don't pay in taxes will be invested or otherwise spent. They don't have jets, they only sometimes even have a 2d house (in fancy places like Pecos, lol—unlike back east, if someone here has a "cabin"... it's a CABIN). If they lives in CA or NY, they'd be hard-pressed to not spend every penny just to live. Housing is insane in NYC or CA, as ducimus can tell you. It's a million bucks to get a tiny place. 250k in major metro areas is hardly "rich."

I work in the financial business. We deal with factual and data driven analysis, not theory. If someone is going to propose theory, it needs to be backed up by empirical data. I have never seen one piece of data driven analysis for trickle down economics. All that is ever offered in its defense is idealistic thinking and anecdotal evidence. That doesn't hold water. Therefore, it doesn't work.

[Ducimus]

Only 25% between 100-150k a year income said they could afford that.

That's because they were idiots and starting buying bigger toys they didn't need. Living within ones means. Novel concept i know. I never jumped on the credit gravy train.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Wow that looks like a fantasy football matchup.

Yes, it's Show Me Your TDs vs The Rest of the Season!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by tater

No, we have a huge illegal problem. HUGE. I just don't hire them if I can possibly avoid it. Michael is originally from NJ. He hires assistants, but never illegals. I pay more, but I'm not a hypocrite.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do. Reroofed, for example. If I picked a roofer without illegals... it would still be raining INSIDE my house. Nothing I could do, it was impossible.

Bottom line is that I would be interested to see the path $1000 takes in the hands of people at the average income for each tax quintile.

BTW, sorta OT, I was listening to a freakanomics podcast today, and they had an interesting study mentioned. They polled people and asked if they could get $2000 in 30 days if they needed to. By any means, borrowing from family, from savings, using a credit card, etc. They picked 2k because that's a typical "emergency" expense (new tranny for car, bonded plumbing fix, need to fly at no notice for sickness or death, etc). Over 50% can't. Only 25% between 100-150k a year income said they could afford that. Oddly, they ended up talking about the lottery, and it turns out that the average lottery player spends... $1000 per year on the lottery.

Think about THAT.

Good point (regarding the lottery) I'll bet these people have more than enough money for cable tv and a 50 inch tv. I think people have their personal ,economic priorities screwed up. People just aren't as responsible as they used to be.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I work in the financial business. We deal with factual and data driven analysis, not theory. If someone is going to propose theory, it needs to be backed up by empirical data. I have never seen one piece of data driven analysis for trickle down economics. All that is ever offered in its defense is idealistic thinking and anecdotal evidence. That doesn't hold water. Therefore, it doesn't work.

So, in your opinion, which economic system works best?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

That's because they were idiots and starting buying bigger toys they didn't need. Living within ones means. Novel concept i know. I never jumped on the credit gravy train.

Yeah, I agree. Everyone now "lives large" compared to when I grew up in the 70s. My dad was president of a publishing company based in NYC. We lived in a really nice town (Wilton), but our house was pretty normal. Yeah, it was 4 bedrooms in CT, but it was smaller than MY house now. The kitchen was not fancy like mine. Straight 70s. When the house needed painting, we painted it. We had not enough window AC units for all the rooms, so summer my pro and I shared the one in his room. We didn't run the all the time, either. We had American cars, and kept them a long time.

Dunno how you'd rank such spending vs now... the lifestyle was FAR simpler though. I can see it in everything I do now vs as a kid. Heck, phone costs. 1 phone (land). No extras, just the phone, and long distance by the minute. We have phone, DSL, 2 cells. One cell bill in constant dollars costs more than the worst phone bill my folks ever saw I'm sure. TV? Broadcast, period. (free). The difference is huge. Correct for that and all the wages now vs then disappear, and everyone would suddenly be up a notch or two I bet.

[gimpy117]

freebies as in tax breaks etc. "Trickle down" its the term used when the government uses tax breaks etc. to give extra money to the rich saying "it will stimulate the economy" when the theoretically spend it.

Money gets interest when a bank "pays" a client for it's use. I'm sure you're going to say "well that stimulates growth". Ehh I beg to differ, because the uber rich won't put their cash in some little credit union, but a huge bank that ost of the profits will stay in the bank, not it's employees. Now if the bank turns around and gives all that trickle down money to it's employees...great...but what incentive do they have.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I work in the financial business. We deal with factual and data driven analysis, not theory. If someone is going to propose theory, it needs to be backed up by empirical data. I have never seen one piece of data driven analysis for trickle down economics. All that is ever offered in its defense is idealistic thinking and anecdotal evidence. That doesn't hold water. Therefore, it doesn't work.

That sounds very scientific.

I can predict specifics about a star very far away more accurately than you can predict the economy a month in the future. Economics is not science, sadly. So all the talk about empirical data is great, but all the models are so terrible that the data doesn't make much of a difference. If the top marginal rate went up 1%, what will the tax revenue be the next year? How accurate can you be? How about not accurate at all—say to the nearest dollar (if it was a physics thing I'd want it out in the deep decimal places).

Nope, they'd have error bars larger than the 1%.