4 ms·
If you want to argue general economic principles, then do so [1]. Just don't cherry pick examples to prop up your perspective. I don't think anyone, even Reagan
by john_b 12y ago
If you want to argue general economic principles, then do so [1]. Just don't cherry pick examples to prop up your perspective. I don't think anyone, even Reagan or Thatcher, would have stood behind the assertion that a luxury phone and computer maker with a hoard of cash would benefit the poor. You're attacking a strawman here.
[1] Just keep in mind that "trickle-down economics" is a political philosophy, not an economic one: http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf (footnote on page 2)
- hnnewguy 12y ago>that a luxury phone and computer maker with a hoard of cash would benefit the poor. If they were forced to re-patriate and pay taxes on that cash, how could that not "help the poor"?
- alphakappa 12y agoRepatriate what? Income that was earned overseas?
- djrogers 12y ago>If they were forced to re-patriate and pay taxes on that cash, how could that not "help the poor"? That would mostly benefit politicians and their beneficiaries, not exactly 'the poor'. Very little of the $$ spent by the government helps 'the poor', unless you're counting our severely underpaid military.
- hnnewguy 12y ago>Very little of the $$ spent by the government helps 'the poor Do you have any idea what the aggregate size of transfer payments are in the US? Yes, you can point to inefficiencies all over the place, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a massive social net for the poor in the US.