5 ms·

I don't hear the politicians arguing about multipliers. I hear Republican's arguing that taxes should not go up especially not for the rich and Democrats arguin

I don't hear the politicians arguing about multipliers. I hear Republican's arguing that taxes should not go up especially not for the rich and Democrats arguing against spending cuts largely.

mistercow 14y ago
Yes, but this article wasn't a defense of politicians.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
They do, sometimes, indirectly. i.e. The Republicans argue that rich people are "job creators" and tax cuts given to them will feed back into the economy (i.e. be multiplied). It's the new generation of "trickle down" economics. Unfortunately some people believe them. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=job+creators+myth https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=job+creators+myth
- jrs235 14y ago
  I use to believe Reaganomics/"trickle down" until one day it clicked: The wealthy "job creators" aren't going to create jobs and employ people to produce widgets if there isn't demand for widgets. In order to increase demand for widgets either a) people must have money to spend on widgets or b) the price of widgets must come down. If the price of widgets has to come down, then the ROI on any investment and jobs created to supply widgets goes down and can become unattractive to the rich and cause them to sit on their money. The fact is our economy is DEMAND driven, not supply driven.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    The fact is our economy is DEMAND driven, not supply driven. In the short run, I agree. In the long run, I disagree. As I said in another post upthread, there was no demand for air travel in 1900. The large current demand for air travel only exists because air travel now exists; it was created by the creation of a new source of supply.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
      What is your position on trickle down economics? Do you think it was a good thing? On theoretical or historical grounds? As far as I can tell, it is a theory that failed in practice. Does this relate to your unsupported ideas on great benefits of innovation. I'm not sure if you are arguing for trickle-down, or just ignoring how it failed.
      - pdonis 14y ago
        Trickle-down economics, as it was used in practice, amounted to the claim that the economy was not demand driven even in the short run. I've agreed that in the short run, the economy is demand driven (because creating new sources of supply takes time--it took half a century for the airplane to go from first invention to commercial use, and about 3/4 of a century to get to widespread commercial use). So I don't think trickle down economics does what it claims to do. If there is some other theory of "trickle-down economics" that talks about long time scales, then I would be more receptive. Take the airplane again as an example: first it was only available to a few inventors; then only to the military and a few inventors and enthusiasts; then it started to be used for things like carrying mail; then for travel by people rich enough to afford it; then it kept expanding and the price kept dropping until now a large fraction of the population can afford an airplane trip. But that's a very different process than the one the "trickle-down" economists were talking about; what trickles down is the actual availability of a new thing, not money.
        SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
        I see no reason why inequality would trickle down on any time-scale. IMHO concentration of wealth at the top is not conducive to innovation at all - the wealthy and powerful would largely prefer to lock things down and keep the status quo than encourage disruptive innovations. e.g Gates and guards not highways. Patents and copyright extensions not free exchange of ideas and media. Monopolies not cheap goods. You talk a lot about teh powers of innovation without any reference to any real world data or being specific about how to encourage it, so I feel that I can also present a vague, handwavy counterargument.

I don't hear the politicians arguing about multipliers. I hear Republican's arguing that taxes should not go up especially not for the rich and Democrats arguing against spending cuts largely.

mistercow 14y ago

Yes, but this article wasn't a defense of politicians.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago

They do, sometimes, indirectly. i.e. The Republicans argue that rich people are "job creators" and tax cuts given to them will feed back into the economy (i.e. be multiplied). It's the new generation of "trickle down" economics. Unfortunately some people believe them. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=job+creators+myth https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=job+creators+myth

jrs235 14y ago
I use to believe Reaganomics/"trickle down" until one day it clicked: The wealthy "job creators" aren't going to create jobs and employ people to produce widgets if there isn't demand for widgets. In order to increase demand for widgets either a) people must have money to spend on widgets or b) the price of widgets must come down. If the price of widgets has to come down, then the ROI on any investment and jobs created to supply widgets goes down and can become unattractive to the rich and cause them to sit on their money. The fact is our economy is DEMAND driven, not supply driven.
- pdonis 14y ago
  The fact is our economy is DEMAND driven, not supply driven. In the short run, I agree. In the long run, I disagree. As I said in another post upthread, there was no demand for air travel in 1900. The large current demand for air travel only exists because air travel now exists; it was created by the creation of a new source of supply.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    What is your position on trickle down economics? Do you think it was a good thing? On theoretical or historical grounds? As far as I can tell, it is a theory that failed in practice. Does this relate to your unsupported ideas on great benefits of innovation. I'm not sure if you are arguing for trickle-down, or just ignoring how it failed.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      Trickle-down economics, as it was used in practice, amounted to the claim that the economy was not demand driven even in the short run. I've agreed that in the short run, the economy is demand driven (because creating new sources of supply takes time--it took half a century for the airplane to go from first invention to commercial use, and about 3/4 of a century to get to widespread commercial use). So I don't think trickle down economics does what it claims to do. If there is some other theory of "trickle-down economics" that talks about long time scales, then I would be more receptive. Take the airplane again as an example: first it was only available to a few inventors; then only to the military and a few inventors and enthusiasts; then it started to be used for things like carrying mail; then for travel by people rich enough to afford it; then it kept expanding and the price kept dropping until now a large fraction of the population can afford an airplane trip. But that's a very different process than the one the "trickle-down" economists were talking about; what trickles down is the actual availability of a new thing, not money.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
        I see no reason why inequality would trickle down on any time-scale. IMHO concentration of wealth at the top is not conducive to innovation at all - the wealthy and powerful would largely prefer to lock things down and keep the status quo than encourage disruptive innovations. e.g Gates and guards not highways. Patents and copyright extensions not free exchange of ideas and media. Monopolies not cheap goods. You talk a lot about teh powers of innovation without any reference to any real world data or being specific about how to encourage it, so I feel that I can also present a vague, handwavy counterargument.