Trickle down economics is BS (what a shock jk)

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Yes, always remember the capitalist's argument. The business owner takes all the risks, so they get all the rewards.

Nevermind the 40-hour worker who feels he has a secure job and takes out a mortgage on a house. Because in the capitalist world, that's not a risk. There's also no risk of possibly getting hurt doing manual labor.

Let me break it down a bit simpler, to the capitalist shills, risk = a rich person's money. That's it. Anything else can be branded as stupidity, or they will blame the victim.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
Yes, always remember the capitalist's argument. The business owner takes all the risks, so they get all the rewards.

Nevermind the 40-hour worker who feels he has a secure job and takes out a mortgage on a house. Because in the capitalist world, that's not a risk. There's also no risk of possibly getting hurt doing manual labor.

Let me break it down a bit simpler, to the capitalist shills, risk = a rich person's money. That's it. Anything else can be branded as stupidity, or they will blame the victim.
I never understood how any one jacked this theory.. obviously if you give more money to the people who actually spend money it will trickle up. Not the other way around. I don’t make hiring decisions based on how much money I have. I make them based on how much business I have and how much business I have depends on how much money my CUSTOMERS have. I’m not just going to hire someone cuz I can afford to do so if I don’t have anything for them to do.
 

Maes17

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
6,521
I never understood how any one jacked this theory.. obviously if you give more money to the people who actually spend money it will trickle up. Not the other way around. I don’t make hiring decisions based on how much money I have. I make them based on how much business I have and how much business I have depends on how much money my CUSTOMERS have. I’m not just going to hire someone cuz I can afford to do so if I don’t have anything for them to do.
I wish my bosses thought like you. I get called back only to put in my work and help get caught up then they bitch and complain how business is slow again.

I question peoples ability to put two and two together sometimes.

Then of course they want me to do more out of my job description. I told them if they want more then give me a raise. If not, send me home
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
I never understood how any one jacked this theory.. obviously if you give more money to the people who actually spend money it will trickle up. Not the other way around. I don’t make hiring decisions based on how much money I have. I make them based on how much business I have and how much business I have depends on how much money my CUSTOMERS have. I’m not just going to hire someone cuz I can afford to do so if I don’t have anything for them to do.
The people who like capitalist theory are usually the ones sucking the teet of some rich idiot. So yeah, of course it works out fine for them.

It seems to me both employee and owner share in the investment of a business. The owners might invest more directly with money. The workers invest more directly with accumulated time.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
The people who like capitalist theory are usually the ones sucking the teet of some rich idiot. So yeah, of course it works out fine for them.

It seems to me both employee and owner share in the investment of a business. The owners might invest more directly with money. The workers invest more directly with accumulated time.
With big business yeah... small business - owner is working 24/7 atleast for the first few years. We never get a day off and are doing something for the business all day everyday. My guys clock in and clock out. They can call out sick, take Christmas off, go on vacation. Those aren’t options for us. Every business is different and that might not be true for some but it is for us right now at about one year in. However, our business still wouldn’t work without our employees and we recognize that and act accordingly. It wouldn’t work without our customers and we recognize that and act accordingly. Businesses are SYSTEMS that are compromise of numerous interrelated pieces all of which are fundamentally important and necessary.

I feel like we used to know this as a society and forgot around the same time our courts decided corporations are people (probably a decade or so before because the courts are slow to reflect changes in culture). And I’m equally as sure that this societal shift was orchestrated by hands off owners and inheritors of large impersonal businesses where they don’t know the names of the people working for them or anything more about their customers then the amount of zeros on their invoices.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
With big business yeah... small business - owner is working 24/7 atleast for the first few years. We never get a day off and are doing something for the business all day everyday. My guys clock in and clock out. They can call out sick, take Christmas off, go on vacation. Those aren’t options for us. Every business is different and that might not be true for some but it is for us right now at about one year in. However, our business still wouldn’t work without our employees and we recognize that and act accordingly. It wouldn’t work without our customers and we recognize that and act accordingly. Businesses are SYSTEMS that are compromise of numerous interrelated pieces all of which are fundamentally important and necessary.

I feel like we used to know this as a society and forgot around the same time our courts decided corporations are people (probably a decade or so before because the courts are slow to reflect changes in culture). And I’m equally as sure that this societal shift was orchestrated by hands off owners and inheritors of large impersonal businesses where they don’t know the names of the people working for them or anything more about their customers then the amount of zeros on their invoices.
Yeah, the inheritors are the worst. And I think it's fair to say corporations are considered greater than people.

My business is all about the customers too. Small businesses don't have a choice like we can't just lean on our grandfathered "brand". And it's crazy how people en masse aren't seeing through all the garbage yet.

It takes us 10 years to remove products from shelves that are known to cause cancer. Why? Are all judges bought and paid for, or is there something deeper? Like are we pissing off someone's dead grandpa by removing talcum powder? Or wait, maybe it's a question of survival. On that note, who the fuck isn't going to survive without talcum powder?? As if a million other things don't achieve the same thing as talcum powder.

Sorry if that turned into a rant. I'm just fed up with "brands" treating me like a braindead moron who was born yesterday.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006


Tell me how anyone ever believed this “theory” wasn’t blatant bullshit?
I was reminded of this article this morning, good info. TDE is a Republican lie that sadly has dominated our imagination for decades.

On the flip side I looked up the Sanders-Warren proposed wealth tax. Last last year California was debating a new tax bill and I'm pretty sure New Jersey also. There are articles from a few other countries; I think the subject and ones like it will continue to be brought up as we search for solutions to extreme wealth division.

There are multiple considerations, such as total earned revenue vs. lower community wealth from lost investment. Searching the web there are far more more articles (bloomberg, WSJ, etc.) against wealth taxes than for it (gee I wonder why lol). I know some feel it's overtly communist to attempt to redistribute wealth but something has to be done to balance society. We're taught the lie that, "they earned it fair and square" which really isn't true. Sanders was suggesting 1% for net wealth above 32 million- to 8% on net wealth over 10 billion- not a crazy ask for starters. Even if the gains are small I say it's important symbolically. The state could use those billions to invest in local small business. On the local scale a little can go a long way.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Yes, funny how when colonists steal land and resources, they are not redistributing wealth. Then there's fiat currency, which's also not redistributing wealth at all. Bankers leveraging your money is called a fair market (makes jerking off hand sign).

The following might be an extreme example for some, but I think it's necessary. No rule says the first person who invented the dildo should be rich for eternity. What I mean is, "getting there first" shouldn't be the litmus test for success. But that's an accurate depiction of what's celebrated in the capitalist world.

Hard-work and brains mean little compared to speed and timing. -Mic drop
 
Top