scum says that 85 people owning the same amount of wealth as 3.5B poorest is fantastic

[Insensitive]

edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."[4][5]

Next you are going to tell me they are empirically the same thing

lik·en
ˈlīkən/
verb
past tense: likened; past participle: likened

1. 1.
   point out the resemblance of someone or something to.
   "they likened the reigning emperor to a god"

 

[DEAD7]

Maybe someone else knows what you're talking about. I sure don't.

I said trickle down isnt a serious economic theory, its a political conjuration. The term "trickle down" is completely political and does not denote a specific economic theory
You say I'm wrong.
Could you link me to the text book teaching it, and the school as well? I would love to see this.

"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.[1] The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2] The term is mostly used ironically or as pejorative.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

 

[DEAD7]

Trickle down economics is just a political term for supply-side economics, which is a school of macroeconomic thought. I'm not sure what your point is.

lik·en
ˈlīkən/
verb
past tense: likened; past participle: likened

1. 1.
   point out the resemblance of someone or something to.
   "they likened the reigning emperor to a god"

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I said trickle down isnt a serious economic theory, its a political conjuration. The term "trickle down" is completely political and does not denote a specific economic theory
You say I'm wrong.
Could you link me to the text book teaching it, and the school as well? I would love to see this.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Trickle down economics is politically understood to be supply side economics. I don't know what is not registering in your brain about this.

I'm going to end this conversation right now now with two sentences from your link.

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."-David Stockman, Reagan's budget director.

CONVERSATION OVER. You lose.

 

[Richard Wright]

things eventually balance themselves out. once the wealth transfer reaches a certain threshold, there will eventually be revolutions because the very people they count on to protect them and their interests (police, military) are not part of them. could take hundreds of years though. then they go to the other extreme. it's like a see-saw. rinse and repeat.

Thats where the robots come in

 

[DEAD7]

Trickle down economics is politically understood to be supply side economics. I don't know what is not registering in your brain about this.

I'm going to end this conversation right now now with two sentences from your link.

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."-David Stockman, Reagan's budget director.

CONVERSATION OVER. You lose.

"politically understood" They used a real theory to get their similar, but fake theory through.

"Trickle Down", well this is used to counter the attacks from the proponents of one form of welfare or another to the charge of what will happen to poor if the rich are allowed to keep more of their money rather than hand it over in taxes: the answer that this retained wealth will trickle down to the poor as well.

"Supply Side" contends there is a Laffer curve that has an optimal tax rate that maximises government revenue at the lowest possible tax rate. So the Supply Side folks hope to generate more wealth to pay for the Warfare state.

W/e if you believe them to empirically be the same thing then so be it. There is really nothing to gain by debating it. Both theories suck

 

[OsO]

he's been privileged.

 

[Kritic]

hes entertaining on Shark Tank for being a dirt bag.

i agree. watching a jew talk down other non-jews and helping other jews is very entertaining.

 

[Kritic]

shouldn't this sociopath's remarks have caught on mainstream news by now the way toronto crackhead mayor should have. or don't the zionists in the media don't want one of their own put out there...

or is justin beiber going to jail more important...

 

[Poppa_Dock]

Wouldn't say he should be killed. But if he got beaten to a bloody pulp, I'd laugh.

i could probably eat sushi while he was gored by boars.

 

[Kritic]

kevin oleary tells robert herjavec to shut up.

i can't stand these crypto zionists who got to where they are through connections and now taken it to the head.

 

[TLOL is back]

His reasoning was that so people can be motivated to do better. Hence good intentions

I know its popular to hate on rich people for not feeling guilty about being rich, but as far as the reason he gave behind his statement, the reason he gave is to uplift people and in no way did he say people not having their basic needs met is a good thing

 

[Kritic]

His reasoning was that so people can be motivated to do better. Hence good intentions

I know its popular to hate on rich people for not feeling guilty about being rich, but as far as the reason he gave behind his statement, the reason he gave is to uplift people and in no way did he say people not having their basic needs met is a good thing

ing one of your own. i dream of catching me a zionist.

 

[tmonster]

this is the guy on shark tank right?

and you played right into his game by getting you to talk about him. he'll take whatever position gets ratings and hits. he does this all the time.

I agree with your general point
but his comment needs a certain public response, lest the vulgarians and small souled men start thinking this is the new cool opinion to hold

 

[tmonster]

His reasoning was that so people can be motivated to do better. Hence good intentions

I know its popular to hate on rich people for not feeling guilty about being rich, but as far as the reason he gave behind his statement, the reason he gave is to uplift people and in no way did he say people not having their basic needs met is a good thing

this is false and voids remaining comments bolstered by it
The rich are very much celebrated and often unduly respected in this country