Thank you very much for these videos , I've been seeing a lot of economy news but not understanding it and when I search online there is so much clickbait, doomsaying and videos with a political agenda. Your videos are helping me learn the facts and I can form my own opinion from there.
@economicshelp
Жыл бұрын
Thank you.
@MrMarinus18
Жыл бұрын
There is another thing he doesn't touch on as much which is power. The more wealth the top have the more power they have to stop that trickling down and the more power they have to destroy the economy by getting unfair advantages over competitors. With massive lobbying power they can scheme for favours and subsidies to compensate for their own incompetence and they can use underhanded tactics to keep out competition even though they would do better. A good example of this is when standard oil was broken up and Rockefeller's wealth increased several fold because those oil companies were far more profitable separately than standard oil was. Trickle down economics makes sense in the classroom. In practice though it's overlooking the fact that ultra rich have many tools available to stop it and to keep all the wealth for themselves. So the more wealth they have the more power they also have to stop trickle down from happening.
@dianabenobo
Жыл бұрын
Trickle DOWN means no tax pressure above to force trickle UP spending from below.
@aminozuur
Жыл бұрын
Excellent video. Indeed, trickle down is BS.
@tom4od
Жыл бұрын
Unfortunately the information is controlled by the wealthiest 1% so I doubt there will ever be a reversal of this trend.
@CurtOntheRadio
Жыл бұрын
So how come you 'know' about it?
@aminulhussain2277
Жыл бұрын
@@CurtOntheRadio Because the rich exist. It's simple logic to deduce that trickle down is nonsense when you can clearly see wealth being concentrated at the top.
@xcovd2533
11 ай бұрын
@CurtOntheRadio there is still some leeway like on KZitem, or books sold simply because they are profitable and necessary due to the message agreeing with the producers.
@markbenoit
4 күн бұрын
Supply side economics is based on the laffer curve, most economists experts agree that there is a revenue maximization point. Trickle down is a nonexistent theory that’s constantly being attacked, it’s a hack phrase, no one said something was going to trickle down. They said the tax cuts would pay for them selfs, they did this by lowering the tax rate, broadening the tax base and eliminating tax loopholes. It works, under Reagan the doubled revenue, and the top income earners paid not only more in taxes but more of the total tax burden.
@patricialawrence6287
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for this video, it's been really helpful with every thing in the news
@economicshelp
Жыл бұрын
Thank you.
@lobintool
Жыл бұрын
"Trickle Down Economics"..Some what instinguishable from being pissed on!
@CurtOntheRadio
Жыл бұрын
It seems to me that if society/economy is geared to reward/incentivise the wealthy, then the wealthy are going to enjoy the vast majority of the benefits of any growth (assuming there is any). So what is the supposed gain (for broader society) anyway, really? It seems there is a tacit promise of jam tomorrow (redistribution - one day?) yet when could this ever happen if everything is geared to the already-wealthy being incentivised? Would it depend on some nominal amount of wealth being attained by some proportion of the country (which obviously not even the US have reached yet) or some massive level of inequality (which, again, not even the US has reached)? Also, when we include the very broad negative aspects of inequality and relentless drive for 'efficiencies' from labour (to obtain this growth!), it all has a deeply offensive moral aspect. Besides, what makes the wealthy into entrepreneurs if not their money? Nobody else can even try it, right? The wasted potential of the poor and working classes is a foul and foolish sin.
@PropagandasaurusRex
Жыл бұрын
Economy is all about balance. What you take from the rich you can give to the poor and vice versa. You can't reward both without taking it from somewhere. It that were possible, that would be economic utopia. An even bigger problem than the uneven distribution of wealth (the economics) is the uneven distribution of power (the politics). In a well functioning democracy laws would reflect the will of the majority (which are not the wealthy), so the wealthy would have no significant advantage over the poor concerning any kind of economic lawmaking. Yet they do have the advantage, and they preselect politicians on who we can vote for to make laws that benefit themselves. So the current neoliberal climate rewarding the wealthy to various degrees is the only viable option in our unfair capitalist system. Any other option will lead to immediate political suicide.
@CurtOntheRadio
Жыл бұрын
@@PropagandasaurusRex Sure, though only people can vote, not corporations. And there has to be a means of change, else how did we get here (from there)?
@PropagandasaurusRex
Жыл бұрын
@@CurtOntheRadio Corporations can "vote", and their vote matters much more than yours or mine. That voting process, or rather vetting process, is called corruption, and it is so overwhelmingly present in most Western democracies that most people don't even see it anymore. There is only one means of change: Revolution. French style.
@DOR8421
Жыл бұрын
if theres rule of law and price competition, employees and owners are already taking as little money as possible to price compete. owners already have the ability to raise product price and keep the extra money. (altho raising product price is harder than failing to lower the price.) taxes and other costs are foisted on end consumer. since taxes are a percentage, i would suggest theres a golden-number tax rate to apply to both employees and employers (you mentioned). i wonder what makes high earners invest in business/housing versus investing in safe unproductive assets like gold. sitting on money isnt great but it does absorb the tax called inflation, to pay for government. decent video.
@MrMarinus18
Жыл бұрын
Trickle down economics is one of those things that makes sense in the classroom but doesn't work in practice. One of the biggest is that as the wealthy gain more and more wealth they also gain more and more power to keep their wealth and stop it from trickling down. If you allow the system to be dominated by a small group at the top then that group can use that system to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.
@MrMarinus18
Жыл бұрын
3:35 Living standards in France are considerably higher than the US. Mostly because higher taxes means more revenue for the government to provide services.
@MrMarinus18
Жыл бұрын
3:35 Um, yes they are. The lower tax money means living standards in the US are significantly worse.
@ManDMore
Жыл бұрын
When people with money buy things, people are employed. When people acquire assets, someone gets paid. The only time wealthy people pull money out of the economy is to hedge against inflation.Wealthy people save their money by investing in appreciating assets, like companies that employ people. People with real wealth do not hide money in mattresses, they make their money work.
@MrMarinus18
Жыл бұрын
No, a lot of assets grow but don't actually produce anything. What you are describing is the ideal of how capitalism is supposed to work. Unfortunately in practice what grows the economy and what reliably grows the assets of the rich are often not the same thing. Capitalism is just a system and like any system it has flaws that can be exploited to break it.
@ManDMore
Жыл бұрын
@@MrMarinus18 I appreciate the polite response. I would like to challenge the premise that aa "lot" of assets do not grow. Some assets like Gold/Silver tend to ride with inflation, these assets grow and decline in value relative to the condition of the economy. The assets I reference are more "aggresive" in that they tend to provide a resource for use, of create a product that is in demand. More afluent members of society can be more "aggresive" in the assets they chose to invest in, which is a part of how they grow their wealth. They may not own power, but they own a power plant, in other words, assets that produce an item that is in demand. While some assets do not grow, these are typically the smaller portion of a wealthy persons portfolio. See what happened to the Hunt brothers by focusing too much on the wrong asset class, it serves as a cautioinary tale for investors.
@MrMarinus18
Жыл бұрын
@@ManDMore Indeed but what matters is what they do and it has been shown that higher wealth often just doesn't lead to more investment. That is unless you put incentives in place to prevent hoarding. There is also the simple fact that raising taxes on the rich often has no impact on their choice to invest but can allow the government to invest in things private citizens wouldn't.
@MrMarinus18
Жыл бұрын
@@ManDMore Also the problem with a lot of investment is that they often don't grow the economy as a whole except for the wealthy by the standard capitalist standard of high prices and low wages. That ends up only producing stuff for the rich and the low wages and low taxes means very little trickles down at all. With investment you shouldn't just look at what it means for the investor. It's more important what it means to everyone that didn't invest. If it only benefits the one who invested then that means they are just able to hoard more wealth for themselves.
@ManDMore
Жыл бұрын
@@MrMarinus18 I appreciate your perspective. We live in a time where the Federal Goverments of a few nations have literally diluted trillions in value out of the system. I assure you, any one "holding" money has been deeply affected. The issue with the uber wealthy, is that there is a suspicion that they are hiding their wealth. I simply feel that they are either spending it or investing it. Unfortunately we cannot know the answer, Gates, Musk, Bezos do not support your notion, I would be interested in looking at examples of who you think supports your position.
@brentsaylor1725
4 ай бұрын
What economist came up with Trickle Down Economics?
@markbenoit
4 күн бұрын
Trickle down economics or trickle down theory is a hack phrase created by the political left. No one advocated for it or said something would trickle down. It’s referring to supply side economics which is based off of the Laffor curve, Which is economic theory that goes back to the 13th century. Proponents of supply side economics said that the tax cuts would pay for themselves meaning no less revenue for the government under Reagan tax revenues doubled, when the tax rates went from 70% to 28% in the economy did great. Many conservatives over the years have challenged any to debate that supply side economics does work.
@highlandrab19
Жыл бұрын
Banning wage gaps between the highest and lowest level of employment would help. Ie nobody is allowed more than 15x the lowest paid person.
@starman900
Жыл бұрын
if it doesn't work why do they persist with it? i don't ask this rhetorically, i genuinely would like to understand why anyone would want to persist with a failed economic theory- you and the chancellor both did ppe too.
@celestecanyon
Жыл бұрын
You can't be serious? You wonder why the wealthy and the wealthy media barons gaslight turkeys to enrich them and to vote for Christmas? 😂
@MrMarinus18
Жыл бұрын
Because one of the main reasons it doesn't work it because the more wealth accumulates at the top the more power they have to stop it trickling down and also the more power they have to keep the myth intact to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.
@markbenoit
4 күн бұрын
It’s something that’s still highly debated. You are not getting the whole story here the are omitting some facts. the term "trickle-down economics" is often used pejoratively by critics of these policies, who argue that they primarily benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class, supporters of these policies argue that they can be an effective way to stimulate economic growth and improve the well-being of all members of society. There are some good videos from art laffer who was an economic advisor under Reagan. There are many Other economic experts you can listen to to get different perspectives and facts. Like: Thomas sowell, Milton Freeman, Anthony Davis, and Walter Williams.
@xavierquark4998
Жыл бұрын
At around 2:07 you state that real GDP per capita has increased much faster than median incomes...but your graph shows the opposite, with median incomes increasing much faster. Perhaps you reversed the intended labels on the graph lines?
@CurtOntheRadio
Жыл бұрын
SFAIK, GDP per capita *has* risen more than median earnings. The graph is mis-labelled?The red and blue marks in the key seem to be the wrong way around (and would better fit the graph if fixed ie red would be at the top of the key, as it is in the graph). "While GDP per capita has risen faster than median household income in OECD27 the size of that divergence varied very substantially, with the USA a clear outlier."
@muratdagdelen8163
Жыл бұрын
I don't believe in trickle-down economics. But, earning above higher band rate does not make you rich. People earning say £35k can be "richer" than someone earning £80k, because the first guy may have more wealth, say a house, or inherited wealth, while the other guy does not have, but worked hard to reach that point. I think we should encourage people to earn more money with lower income taxes, but we should tax the wealth with higher capital gain tax, inheritance tax, maybe alnd value tax replacing council tax and wealth tax for the richests. Also, we should decrease VAT, which is a regressive tax.
@economicshelp
Жыл бұрын
Good well thought out wealth taxes would definitely help. Be equitable and avoid distortion effects.
@markbenoit
4 күн бұрын
Is there any proof that taxing the rich more(top income earners already pay 43% of all income taxes as well as many other taxes.) benefits the poor? The government already gets 18% of GDP, If the government gets more revenue will they pay down the deficit? Or just spend it? The idea that the government can just tax the rich to solve their spending problems is easily debunked. If the government were to steal all the wealth from all the billionaires theoretically it would have enough money to fund government one time for 9 months. Also there be many consequences like destroying the economy.
@jonahtwhale1779
Жыл бұрын
Trickle down works - just not quickly. 200 years ago most people only owned one or two sets of clothes and a few household trinkets. 100 years ago most people owned many sets of clothes, some furniture and their personal items e.g a watch. Very few owned luxury items like cars etc. No foreign holidays etc. 50 years ago most people owned cars, a TV set, took foreign holidays, many owned their home and lots of consumer goods. The wealth created at the top, with the labour 8f those at the bottom, has trickled down. Don't like it? It us not fair? Create yourr own iphone or computer systems or airline - then you will see how easy it us to become super wealthy (answer - incredibly difficult). Perhaps your life isn't so bad after all. 50
@davidstrelec2000
Жыл бұрын
You forgot to mention there was a social democracy from 1945 until the trickle down
@lobintool
Жыл бұрын
"Trickle up" more like!
@CurtOntheRadio
Жыл бұрын
Maybe worth noting that "rich people's savings" don't just sit in a bank doing nothing - that capital is put to use and loaned out several times over? Is that a more inefficient use of the capital than a poor person having it so they can better eat? "Teach a man to fish" and all that? [Yet where is the teacher? Where is the rod? And where, even, is the river?]
@economicshelp
Жыл бұрын
To some extent it can be loaned out. But since GFC of 2007, bank deposits have grown and there is unused savings not being lent out.
@CurtOntheRadio
Жыл бұрын
@@economicshelp Ah, ok. Thanks. They are kept as reserves? Or something else?
@MrMarinus18
Жыл бұрын
The answer to your question is a resounding yes. More money lower pockets boosts consumption and social harmony and so does way more. On top of that economic growth for the sake of economic growth is just retarded. If economic growth does not lead to higher living standards for it's people then it should be abandoned even if it makes the numbers go up. Slavery was a big boon for the US economy and the emancipation of the slaves was a massive drop in the wealth of the US. Does that mean it was wrong to free the slaves? I feel we have today become far too obsessed with the GDP dick measuring contest. Our economy should not exist solely to make numbers go up but to provide for the people and protect our interests. That is not even mentioning the fact that GDP is a very arbitary number that has changed quite a few times and is heavily skewed to disproportionally favor the US so it has more power in geo-politics. A big reason the US has the highest GDP for so long is because they actually decide what that number is referring to. When trickle down economics were adopted full force in the 1990's economic growth was not as high as expected so they changed the definition of GDP to rectify that by including financial institutions more heavily than before as they were the biggest growing sectors at the time. This meant the US and Europe had more bargaining power in the newly created TWO and other financial institutions. The GDP of the US will never fall below China's because it's the US who decides what GDP even means.
@highlandrab19
Жыл бұрын
50 - 60% isnt marginal
@humanwithaplaylist
Жыл бұрын
Fuck sakes I thought it was a good video until the end
@samgrainger1554
Жыл бұрын
When rich people buy things, luxuary items and such that makes people spend time to make those items. This distorts our efforts away from making usefull things towards making useless things.
@suprithAnCom
Жыл бұрын
True
@Redbeardedbadass
Жыл бұрын
The amount of people required to make useless things is drastically less than the amount of people required to make useful things. One of the many reasons why trickle down economics doesn’t work
@PierreAllencards
Жыл бұрын
Isn’t trickle down economics proven to be successful? Middle class America is essentially proof
@genuser9758
Жыл бұрын
No.
@greydovey7482
Жыл бұрын
Absolutely not in fact most studies point out that although rich people get richer the poor always remain stagnant. Middle class America was around far before Reagan, and expanded under the New Deal, and post war economic boom
@PanglossDr
Жыл бұрын
People get rich by NOT spending money.
@razkhan2958
Жыл бұрын
Yes rich become rich and invest in more money in houses or save up
@ciararespect4296
Жыл бұрын
Exactly and the property isn't contributing to anything
@razkhan2958
Жыл бұрын
@@ciararespect4296 rich don't help or contribute to the society
Пікірлер: 68