Kinja reply list

Read More
Free Market Party CompanyHamilton Nolan
3/15/16 10:46am
I’ve actually been trying to circulate the notion of “trickle up” for awhile.

1) Raising minimum wage likely puts money back into the economy quicker; the poor don’t save a lot.

2) Making school more affordable means students graduate more able to buy things like cars and houses

3) Single-payer is GOOD for small business, and not just from the reduction in insurance premiums; there’s less absenteeism and overall anxiety when people have access to health care.

Go Bernie!
Reply
- Read More
  toothpetardFree Market Party Company
  3/15/16 10:50am
  It used to work that way before reagans’ invention of trickle down; in the days when america was great again.
  Reply
- Read More
  TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)Free Market Party Company
  3/15/16 10:51am
  2) Case in point: If I didn’t have student debt to pay off, I’d have enough saved for a down payment on a house, and I would be a homeowner.
  Reply
Read More
Endless Supply of CynicismHamilton Nolan
3/15/16 10:56am
Didn’t George W. try that? I remember getting a $300 check in the mail.

Some of us are liberal but still think federal debt is a big issue (and for some reason it’s being ignored this campaign). At some point America will go bankrupt or we’ll be paying so much in interest we won’t be able to afford other things, and then money the government gives out will be worthless anyway. Solutions like these assume an infinite government money supply and that inflation is somehow kept in check.
Reply
- Read More
  cepalgEndless Supply of Cynicism
  3/15/16 10:58am
  fun bit of trivia: for every one dollar in food stamps the government gives out it gets 1.50 back in taxed economic activity.
  
  turns out that when you give a poor person a dollar, that dollar fuckin’ MOVES.
  
  if I gave you an investment vehicle that showed a consistent 50% return, what would -your- approach to it be?
  Reply
- Read More
  Endless Supply of Cynicismcepalg
  3/15/16 11:05am
  I think you’ve misread something or are confusing different concepts. $1 in food stamps might generate $1.50 in economic activity (I don’t know, I haven’t seen the data, but let’s assume you’re right), but it doesn’t generate anywhere near that in tax revenue.
  
  What’s the tax revenue generated on $1.50? $.20-$.45? So the government spends a dollar and gets an average return of 30 cents adding 70 cents to federal debt for every dollar spent. It’s an unsustainable model.
  
  What you’re talking about is the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, it only exists in imagination land.
  Reply
Read More
LongSnakeHamilton Nolan
3/15/16 10:44am
Calling all water carriers and bootlickers to come and defend millionaires who don’t give a shit about them, we need your opinions pronto!
Reply
- Read More
  SpringSprungLongSnake
  3/15/16 10:49am
  Okay, here ya go. Uh...JOB CREATORS!! Bootstraps!! Something about Reagan!!
  Reply
- Read More
  toothpetardLongSnake
  3/15/16 10:51am
  I was on the board of directors of walmart for a while, let me fix it.
  Reply
Read More
Wile_EHamilton Nolan
3/15/16 10:47am
It’s been tried on a small scale in the US. Remember thos $500 checks from the IRS that Bush sent out? Not a lot of impact.

This strategy seems to have the most success and the largest impact in very poor areas like Africa where people are able to invest their win fall into things that make an immediate impact on their lives. Like starting a cottage industry, digging a well, or sending a kid to school.

In the US, I’d rather see things like limiting the fees that banks can charge. Having a bank account has become EXPENSIVE. And the less money you have to put into a bank account, the more expensive it is. Yearly maintenance fees, transaction fees, teller fees, check fees, credit card fees.... a lot of people don’t have bank accounts because they live paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford to be hit with fees. And how can you build savings if the only place you can afford to put your money is in a coffee can on top of the refrigerator?
Reply
- Read More
  LongSnakeWile_E
  3/15/16 10:52am
  Actually, Bush’s tax refund did succeed at increasing spending. One of the only things he did that worked, actually. Not sure where you’re getting your info from.
  Reply
- Read More
  Wile_ELongSnake
  3/15/16 10:58am
  These responses imply that the aggregate marginal propensity to spend from the rebate was about one third and that there would not be substantially more spending as a lagged effect of the rebate. Because of the low spending propensity, the rebates in 2008 provided low “bang for the buck” as economic stimulus, Shapiro and Slemrod conclude. Low- income individuals were particularly likely to use the rebate to pay off debt. Shapiro and Slemrod speculate that adverse shocks to housing and other wealth may have focused consumers on rebuilding their balance sheets. The authors note that, given the further decline of wealth since the 2008 rebates were implemented, the impetus to save a windfall might have become even stronger since their survey was conducted.
  
  http://www.nber.org/digest/mar09/w…
  
  Effect was marginal, with about half of people using it to pay off existing debt.
  Reply
Read More
Tabby GevinsonHamilton Nolan
3/15/16 10:48am
Hey, have you seen the economic plan released by the establishment Dem group that calls themselves the Progressive Policy Institute? It calls for, amongst other things:

- replacing income taxes with sales taxes

- cutting corporate taxes

- replacing public schools with more charter schools

- cutting corporate regulation

- passing the TPP
Reply
- Read More
  thenewcapTabby Gevinson
  3/15/16 10:54am
  And people will tell you that the US is sliding more to the left. All of that sounds mighty business friendly and mighty right wing to me, man.
  Reply
- Read More
  Demon!Tabby Gevinson
  3/15/16 10:57am
  So, more New Democrats?
  Reply
Read More
Sean BrodyHamilton Nolan
3/15/16 10:48am
Wouldn’t we all spend it on booze and ciggies?
Reply
- Read More
  Low Information BoaterSean Brody
  3/15/16 10:52am
  Yeah, and we'd waste the rest.
  Reply
- Read More
  HubcapJennySean Brody
  3/15/16 10:59am
  (starts building a whisky still)
  Reply
Read More
Pink SkullHamilton Nolan
3/15/16 10:53am
I’ve always called it “Grow Up” economics. And yeah, it stands to reason that having people who will immediately put the money back into the economy would help small businesses ( more people buying your shit), as a stimulus. But I’m a commenter and not a econ guy so what the fuck do I know.
Reply
- Read More
  sliversandcoldPink Skull
  3/15/16 11:52am
  Fun fact: The average person knows more about how the economy actually works than the average economist!
  Reply
- Read More
  Stevie KnicksPink Skull
  3/15/16 11:59am
  Except a significant % of people will just pay off debt that is owed primarily to banks and other huge businesses. One time payments aren’t going to have lasting positive effects on the economy, because the problem is systematic. Taxes need to be raised on extreme income earners. Huge companies like Verizon, Apple, Oil etc make unbelievable amounts of money every year of which a significant amount is from people with basically no money. They are massively overcharging people for things that have essentially become mandatory.
  
  Part of the issue is that people with no money still somehow “afford” to buy a next gen iPhones, 50" TV’s, and $100 a month TV service. That said, I’m not sure what our Gov’t expects them to do given that they behave in the same way by consistently running budget deficits with no coherent plan for how that will stop.
  
  IMO, now that big businesses have decided that maximizing profits is the only factor they care about, the Gov’t needs to treat them in the same way. Tax the living shit out of the 1% and use it to pay for universal heath care, by far the biggest cost every person in the country needs but still can’t afford. That also saves an unbelievable amount of money for small/medium sized businesses who then have more $ to grow their business and hire more people at real wages.
  Reply
Read More
Dave Hamilton Nolan
3/15/16 10:46am
Nah, I would just use it for some crazy shit like rent, or food—who am I kidding: heroin, it would be heroin.
Reply
- Read More
  I forgot my account keyDave
  3/15/16 10:50am
  I didn’t use hard drugs before the free money but now that I’m finally getting enough to pay for my necessities, I better spend it on heroin.
  Reply
- Read More
  opiumsmabytchDave
  3/15/16 10:54am
  Heroin mixed with platinum dust. Only the best.
  Reply
Read More
crouching tigerHamilton Nolan
3/15/16 5:57pm
In such economies, as inequality reaches a certain level, money starts naturally flowing towards the wealthy, which only makes inequality worse

Does money ever “naturally” flow towards the wealthy, or is that a function of our political economy and tax code?
Reply
- Read More
  Gubbincrouching tiger
  3/15/16 7:47pm
  Thomas Piketty says so, and has an historical analysis to support it.
  
  At best, we use our political economy and tax code to slow the flow so our society doesn’t implode into feudalism or revolution.
  Reply
- Read More
  crouching tigerGubbin
  3/15/16 7:51pm
  I’d like to read more of Piketty; I’ve only seen his work abstracted here and elsewhere on the internet. It sounds accessible and interesting.
  Reply
Read More
Low Information BoaterHamilton Nolan
3/15/16 10:48am
Money abides gravity, just the same as anything else. Great concentrations of wealth exert an attractive force on all adjacent funds, drawing them in and further increasing the gravitational mass until such time as a singularity is achieved and an event horizon formed, beyond which no legal tender or negotiable instrument can escape. This is the scientific basis of American conservativism.
Reply
- Read More
  logophobe's pointless patrolLow Information Boater
  3/15/16 11:16am
  I wish this wasn’t so depressingly reminiscent of analysis by actual, professional economists.
  
  Great. Not even noon and I need a strong drink already.
  Reply