4 ms·

> you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance. So what is unsubstantiated in your view? The fact that super rich use offshore accounts? That sup

by cies 5y ago

> you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance. So what is unsubstantiated in your view? The fact that super rich use offshore accounts? That super rich make more money with moving assets than they could make with labor? That poor people will likely spend given money quickly?

bottled_poe 5y ago
Should I quote the parts in question? They seem obvious to me, as it’s every sentence.
- pegasus 5y ago
  Should he/she beg you to do so? They've already asked you once. And no, it's not obvious to me what your counterargument is.
  - bottled_poe 5y ago
    Fine.. > Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). Clearly hyperbole. Where’s the evidence for this broad claim? > It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with. Is this not “free market economics” ? Seems there’s a non-mythical basis there.. I could be wrong though if that’s a fictional concept? Would love to be enlightened. > It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that. This is opinion/conjecture. > Go figure, give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. Appeal to probability, evidence? > Give a billionaire $20M, see the money go into the fintech machine and pour out into offshore accounts, as the billionaire holds on to whatever financial product they bought forever as long as it appreciates faster than inflation. Again, speak to probability, evidence? > Oh, and they'll spend $200 on a fancy dinner. Is that illegal? What’s the problem here? > Cue Pikachu face when the economy doesn't improve. Must I comment on this one?
    - romwell 5y ago
      >> Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). >Clearly hyperbole. Where’s the evidence for this broad claim? Dare I say.... in the fucking article?[1] [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29483131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29483131
- romwell 5y ago
  I'd be so happy if everything I said was obvious, because in that case, trickle-down wouldn't have been the de-facto economic direction of the US since Reagan. But it seems like the obviousness of the stupidity of the idea of trickle-down has been lost on us; hence the study. Do quote though — maybe it'll help the obvious point trickle down to the rest of the population.
  - bottled_poe 5y ago
    See my other response to sibling.
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Moving assets is labor. Just like making computers copy data over the Internet is labor.
- cies 5y ago
  Labor is what makes a wage. Moving assets is called investing. With labor the pay is tied to the number of hours worked.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    The Interweb's dictionaries disagree with you. Wages are not mentioned in any definition of labor. It is simply synonymous with work, particularily the physically exhausting kind, which sitting in front of a computer shuffling numbers all day long arguably is.
    - cies 5y ago
      It also means birthing a child. Economically there is the distinction. If you do not agree there is you, IMHO, have fallen for the capitalist's propaganda that they "do labor", "add value" and "you can be one too if you work hard and do not spend money on useless things". Lol.
      - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
        So what do you think they do all day? Assets don't move by themselves. First of all, where do you even move them? You have to research. Research takes time. Then you gotta figure out how to move them there. More research. And then you gotta move them at the right time, yet more research. It's not like they have an AI that just makes optimal asset moves automatically... What do you do for work, huh? Sit in front of a computer all day? I bet a lot of people think you're just cheating your way to wages too. Imagine how someone literally laying bricks feels about your 100k comfy office salary.

by cies 5y ago

bottled_poe 5y ago

Should I quote the parts in question? They seem obvious to me, as it’s every sentence.

pegasus 5y ago
Should he/she beg you to do so? They've already asked you once. And no, it's not obvious to me what your counterargument is.
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  Fine.. > Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). Clearly hyperbole. Where’s the evidence for this broad claim? > It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with. Is this not “free market economics” ? Seems there’s a non-mythical basis there.. I could be wrong though if that’s a fictional concept? Would love to be enlightened. > It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that. This is opinion/conjecture. > Go figure, give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. Appeal to probability, evidence? > Give a billionaire $20M, see the money go into the fintech machine and pour out into offshore accounts, as the billionaire holds on to whatever financial product they bought forever as long as it appreciates faster than inflation. Again, speak to probability, evidence? > Oh, and they'll spend $200 on a fancy dinner. Is that illegal? What’s the problem here? > Cue Pikachu face when the economy doesn't improve. Must I comment on this one?
  - romwell 5y ago
    >> Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). >Clearly hyperbole. Where’s the evidence for this broad claim? Dare I say.... in the fucking article?[1] [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29483131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29483131
romwell 5y ago
I'd be so happy if everything I said was obvious, because in that case, trickle-down wouldn't have been the de-facto economic direction of the US since Reagan. But it seems like the obviousness of the stupidity of the idea of trickle-down has been lost on us; hence the study. Do quote though — maybe it'll help the obvious point trickle down to the rest of the population.
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  See my other response to sibling.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

Moving assets is labor. Just like making computers copy data over the Internet is labor.

cies 5y ago
Labor is what makes a wage. Moving assets is called investing. With labor the pay is tied to the number of hours worked.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  The Interweb's dictionaries disagree with you. Wages are not mentioned in any definition of labor. It is simply synonymous with work, particularily the physically exhausting kind, which sitting in front of a computer shuffling numbers all day long arguably is.
  - cies 5y ago
    It also means birthing a child. Economically there is the distinction. If you do not agree there is you, IMHO, have fallen for the capitalist's propaganda that they "do labor", "add value" and "you can be one too if you work hard and do not spend money on useless things". Lol.
    - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
      So what do you think they do all day? Assets don't move by themselves. First of all, where do you even move them? You have to research. Research takes time. Then you gotta figure out how to move them there. More research. And then you gotta move them at the right time, yet more research. It's not like they have an AI that just makes optimal asset moves automatically... What do you do for work, huh? Sit in front of a computer all day? I bet a lot of people think you're just cheating your way to wages too. Imagine how someone literally laying bricks feels about your 100k comfy office salary.