On October 05 2012 20:34 DoubleReed wrote: I don't know people are still talking about Romney's tax loophole deduction stuff. Studies have already shown that it is impossible to give that large a tax cut and make it up with tax loopholes. Like there aren't enough loopholes. Why do people keep bringing this up?
Am I the only one who thought it was weird that both Romney and Obama suggested lowering the corporate tax rate despite the fact that no corporations actually pay the corporate tax rate...
I mean I think Exxon Mobil's effective tax rate was like 2% last year...
Studies, including the TPC study, have shown that there are plenty of loopholes available to close to make up for the rate cuts.
Yes, and then you (and this also goes for jacosajh who just posted above me) arrive to this little fact included in the study that I already reminded you of a few pages ago:
The key intuition behind our central result is that, because the total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is smaller than the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden. As a result, maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households.
The TPC used something like 65% of the tax expenditures they considered viable to make the rate cuts revenue neutral. By putting more tax expenditures on the table you can easily re-shift the tax burden back towards high earners.
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
This discussion would be valuable if presidents existed in a theoretical vacuum without a bi-partisan congress and the backdrop of impossibly complex world economic interrelationships and historical domestic policies.
Considering that congress is nearly split down the middle, and the American public's political alignment is split down the middle, and the presidency usually shifts back and forth between the two parties, it's fair to say that our economic situation and policy is not entirely a reflection of our man in office, but a reflection of our general trajectory, which reflects this 50-50 political balance.
Americans elect presidents based on level of comfort and charisma. Because neither party has a monopoly on this quality, political power goes back and forth and balances out over time.
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
"Adam Smith, doubtless with the speculative bubbles of the early eighteenth century in mind, regarded joint stock companies as licenses for irresponsible entrepreneurs to speculate with other people's money. The reluctance to sanction joint stock forms of organization except for large-scale semi-public works - canals, railroads, docks, etc. - derived precisely from such objections. The whole history of speculative crashes from the mid-nineteenth century to the present time suggests that the objections are far from unfounded, and that the 'finance' form of capitalism faces a perpetual problem of keeping its own house in order" - David Harvey (1982)
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
"Adam Smith, doubtless with the speculative bubbles of the early eighteenth century in mind, regarded joint stock companies as licenses for irresponsible entrepreneurs to speculate with other people's money. The reluctance to sanction joint stock forms of organization except for large-scale semi-public works - canals, railroads, docks, etc. - derived precisely from such objections. The whole history of speculative crashes from the mid-nineteenth century to the present time suggests that the objections are far from unfounded, and that the 'finance' form of capitalism faces a perpetual problem of keeping its own house in order" - David Harvey (1982)
"Trickle down economics" is merely another way of saying "A rising tide lifts all boats."
Barack Obama received a valuable reminder in his drubbing at Wednesday night’s debate: He is a president, not a king.
In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.
Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush. Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, Obama has shied from mixing it up with members of Congress, too. And, especially since Rahm Emanuel’s departure, Obama is surrounded by a large number of yes men who aren’t likely to get in his face.
This insularity led directly to the Denver debacle: Obama was out of practice and unprepared to be challenged. The White House had supposed that Obama’s forays into social media — town hall meetings with YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the like — would replace traditional presidential communication. By relying on such venues, Obama’s argument skills atrophied, and he was ill-equipped to engage in old-fashioned give and take.
Also, though early, it's looking like Romney is getting a big bounce in the swing states in which he was pronounced all but dead just a couple weeks ago. Several polls are showing Romney either with leads in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia or in a dead heat with Obama now. We'll see how it shakes out.
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
"Adam Smith, doubtless with the speculative bubbles of the early eighteenth century in mind, regarded joint stock companies as licenses for irresponsible entrepreneurs to speculate with other people's money. The reluctance to sanction joint stock forms of organization except for large-scale semi-public works - canals, railroads, docks, etc. - derived precisely from such objections. The whole history of speculative crashes from the mid-nineteenth century to the present time suggests that the objections are far from unfounded, and that the 'finance' form of capitalism faces a perpetual problem of keeping its own house in order" - David Harvey (1982)
Precisely
I always thought that the real heirs of Smith, Ricardo, and liberal economists of the late XVIII / early XIXth century were certainly not neo-liberals. It's staggering how many regulations their theories implicitely imply to be still relevant in modern times (I'm also thinking of Smith forseeing the problem of concurency and delocalization in a globalized world, with the example of England and Portugal).
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
"Adam Smith, doubtless with the speculative bubbles of the early eighteenth century in mind, regarded joint stock companies as licenses for irresponsible entrepreneurs to speculate with other people's money. The reluctance to sanction joint stock forms of organization except for large-scale semi-public works - canals, railroads, docks, etc. - derived precisely from such objections. The whole history of speculative crashes from the mid-nineteenth century to the present time suggests that the objections are far from unfounded, and that the 'finance' form of capitalism faces a perpetual problem of keeping its own house in order" - David Harvey (1982)
"Trickle down economics" is merely another way of saying "A rising tide lifts all boats."
Well, it precisely doesn't, that's what we are saying
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
"Adam Smith, doubtless with the speculative bubbles of the early eighteenth century in mind, regarded joint stock companies as licenses for irresponsible entrepreneurs to speculate with other people's money. The reluctance to sanction joint stock forms of organization except for large-scale semi-public works - canals, railroads, docks, etc. - derived precisely from such objections. The whole history of speculative crashes from the mid-nineteenth century to the present time suggests that the objections are far from unfounded, and that the 'finance' form of capitalism faces a perpetual problem of keeping its own house in order" - David Harvey (1982)
"Trickle down economics" is merely another way of saying "A rising tide lifts all boats."
All we disagree on is who is represented by the boats an who is represented by the tide. There are usually less boats than water.
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
"Adam Smith, doubtless with the speculative bubbles of the early eighteenth century in mind, regarded joint stock companies as licenses for irresponsible entrepreneurs to speculate with other people's money. The reluctance to sanction joint stock forms of organization except for large-scale semi-public works - canals, railroads, docks, etc. - derived precisely from such objections. The whole history of speculative crashes from the mid-nineteenth century to the present time suggests that the objections are far from unfounded, and that the 'finance' form of capitalism faces a perpetual problem of keeping its own house in order" - David Harvey (1982)
"Trickle down economics" is merely another way of saying "A rising tide lifts all boats."
All we disagree on is who is represented by the boats an who is represented by the tide. There are usually less boats than water.
It's a terrible analogy anyway.
Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
On October 06 2012 03:37 Biff The Understudy wrote: (I'm also thinking of Smith forseeing the problem of concurency and delocalization in a globalized world, with the example of England and Portugal).
This sounds interesting but I don't know what you are talking about, do you mind elaborating?
I've only recently become interested in political economy so there's probably some stupid things I don't know.
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
Mitt isn't really advocating trickle down economics. He's not offering a tax cut to the rich to grow the economy.
Financial markets help capital reach the real economy quicker, not slower.
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
Financial markets help capital reach the real economy quicker, not slower.
On October 06 2012 03:37 Biff The Understudy wrote: (I'm also thinking of Smith forseeing the problem of concurency and delocalization in a globalized world, with the example of England and Portugal).
This sounds interesting but I don't know what you are talking about, do you mind elaborating?
I've only recently become interested in political economy so there's probably some stupid things I don't know.
I haven't read Wealth of the Nation for like, 4 years, so it would take me an hour to find it.
On October 05 2012 20:34 DoubleReed wrote: I don't know people are still talking about Romney's tax loophole deduction stuff. Studies have already shown that it is impossible to give that large a tax cut and make it up with tax loopholes. Like there aren't enough loopholes. Why do people keep bringing this up?
Am I the only one who thought it was weird that both Romney and Obama suggested lowering the corporate tax rate despite the fact that no corporations actually pay the corporate tax rate...
I mean I think Exxon Mobil's effective tax rate was like 2% last year...
Studies, including the TPC study, have shown that there are plenty of loopholes available to close to make up for the rate cuts.
Yes, and then you (and this also goes for jacosajh who just posted above me) arrive to this little fact included in the study that I already reminded you of a few pages ago:
The key intuition behind our central result is that, because the total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is smaller than the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden. As a result, maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households.
The TPC used something like 65% of the tax expenditures they considered viable to make the rate cuts revenue neutral. By putting more tax expenditures on the table you can easily re-shift the tax burden back towards high earners.
You may have missed the last sentence of the quote: "This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households."
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
Mitt isn't really advocating trickle down economics. He's not offering a tax cut to the rich to grow the economy.
Financial markets help capital reach the real economy quicker, not slower.
Oh yeah?
Explain me how speculating on derived product, or any purely financial speculative movement helps capital to reach anything at all? I'm not talking of raw materials: I know it's supposed to make the market more fluid, which would actually be very true if it was done in reasonable proportions, which is far from being the case.
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
"Adam Smith, doubtless with the speculative bubbles of the early eighteenth century in mind, regarded joint stock companies as licenses for irresponsible entrepreneurs to speculate with other people's money. The reluctance to sanction joint stock forms of organization except for large-scale semi-public works - canals, railroads, docks, etc. - derived precisely from such objections. The whole history of speculative crashes from the mid-nineteenth century to the present time suggests that the objections are far from unfounded, and that the 'finance' form of capitalism faces a perpetual problem of keeping its own house in order" - David Harvey (1982)
"Trickle down economics" is merely another way of saying "A rising tide lifts all boats."
All we disagree on is who is represented by the boats an who is represented by the tide. There are usually less boats than water.
It's a terrible analogy anyway.
Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
Trickle down economics is not an economic theory. No economists advocate anything that goes by the name "trickle down." It is simply a pejorative, primarily designed to evoke anti-rich emotions. In addition, to support OR criticize trickle down economics is to necessarily take a simplistic zero-sum view of an economy, in which capital moves in the OPPOSITE direction as what actually occurs in practice.
The very idea that profits “trickle down” to workers depicts the economic sequence of events in the opposite order from that in the real world. Workers must first be hired, and commitments made to pay them, before there is any output produced to sell for a profit, and independently of whether that output subsequently sells for a profit or at a loss. With many investments, whether they lead to a profit or a loss can often be determined only years later, and workers have to be paid in the meantime, rather than waiting for profits to “trickle down” to them. The real effect of tax rate reductions is to make the future prospects of profit look more favorable, leading to more current investments that generate more current economic activity and more jobs. Those who attribute a trickle-down theory to others are attributing their own misconception to others, as well as distorting both the arguments used and the hard facts about what actually happened after the recommended policies were put into effect. -Thomas Sowell
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
Financial markets help capital reach the real economy quicker, not slower.
What we want is "more wisely," not "quicker."
They help with that too. In commodity markets they help keep prices stable as well.
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
Mitt isn't really advocating trickle down economics. He's not offering a tax cut to the rich to grow the economy.
Financial markets help capital reach the real economy quicker, not slower.
those QEs are not helping matters much apparently as corporations are awash in profit and sitting on cash but not doing much with it.
EPT
