Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

shockey80

(4,379 posts)
Mon Feb 5, 2018, 11:32 AM Feb 2018

People, we have a math problem.

I am not an expert on economics but I do know how to add and subtract.

I know Trickle Down Economics does not work long term. They just cut taxes a lot. This will add to the national debt. One of the tools we use to fight off an economic downturn is tax cuts. If we have a downturn how can they cut taxes? What will they do instead? Decrease spending on government programs we depend on? Attack SS, medicare, medicaid?

When you subtract regulations, you add corruption.

When you add to the wealth divide, you subtract from the working people.

Tick, Tick, Tick.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
People, we have a math problem. (Original Post) shockey80 Feb 2018 OP
Dow 666 MFM008 Feb 2018 #1
Wealth Disparity modrepub Feb 2018 #2

modrepub

(4,108 posts)
2. Wealth Disparity
Mon Feb 5, 2018, 01:18 PM
Feb 2018

I don't know, I think we have more of a problem understanding how markets function and allowing a small class of individuals take all of the rewards (upper-upper management and mutual fund companies). I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis.

I think I read (Thomas Piketty) that much of the wealth distribution disparity is due to the differences in overall growth versus growth in capital; capital growth is mainly stock market growth. In general, most people tend not to directly hold stocks (not counting mutual funds since you don't technically own shares, your mutual fund company does). I can understand not wanting to loose money or get wiped out financially but making this decision (avoiding risk) means you remove yourself from the potential to earn greater than non market alternatives (bonds, savings accounts) and you remove yourself from expressing your opinions on how companies are run (through proxy votes; your mutual funds get to vote even though it was your money that bought the stock). I also take exception to mutual funds saying it's not safe to own a lot of one stock, especially in your own company. If that's so bad, then why do your company's CEO and board of directors get so much stock and theoretically get to approve of their own compensation package via their stock share's proxy votes?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»People, we have a math pr...