peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:01:18 UTC #174
Total nonsense but I expect nothing more from you. Zero data. Zero analysis. All talking points, many of which are confused and sometimes contradictory
The only one spouting nonsense is you.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:03:12 UTC #175
Almost certainly heavily subsidized by the government as well
You are still missing the point entirely. Trickle down has nothing to do with the hospital itself and who funded it. It has everything to do with the small businesses that sprout up by the introduction of the hospital.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:05:01 UTC #176
dantes 2018-10-06 15:12:26 UTC #177
Dear St Louis Federal Reserve,
Peek-a-boo, the smartest person in the world.
dantes 2018-10-06 15:12:51 UTC #178
And you criticize others for arrogance.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:21:46 UTC #179
And you criticize others for arrogance
I was being facetious. ImRightYoureWrong was sarcastically knocking the rich and I was returning the favor.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:23:33 UTC #180
ear St Louis Federal Reserve,
Peek-a-boo, the smartest person in the world
For someone who supposedly likes to discuss the issues, thus far you haven’t demonstrated any propensity to address my take on trickle down economics. Why is that?
dantes 2018-10-06 15:27:33 UTC #181
I did. Your response was only a ad hominem.
You effectively ended the conversation with such a reply.
reflechissez 2018-10-06 15:37:04 UTC #182
Your “take” is incorrect
MichaelScarn 2018-10-06 16:26:07 UTC #183
Recently a major hospital was built in a neighboring community. Over the intervening years an explosion of growth surrounding that hospital has taken place. Miles of new healthcare businesses have sprung up. Not surprisingly many small businesses have opened their doors to cater to the needs of these new care professionals. I don’t even recognize that stretch of road anymore.
Trickle down economics resulting from that single hospital.
This was a private hospital, funded solely by people who received massive tax incentives to build it?
dantes 2018-10-06 16:31:50 UTC #184
Not to mention hospitals have intrinsic social value at protecting and promoting community health and should be considered necessary infrastructure.
ImRightYoureWrong 2018-10-06 16:42:23 UTC #185
Actually that is exactly what trickle down is all about. I realize DEMs believe trickle down means that the rich will simply give away money to the less wealthy, but that simply isn’t the case.
Again, you fail basic econ 101. What you are describing are multiplier effects which are outputs of spending velocity. The source of the spending, the ratio of saving vs spending, outputs the velocity across multiple tiers of an economy. The source, when it is applied to top earners, has smaller velocity due to a higher ratio of savings. It also creates unstable speculative investment unless backed by demand. Multipliers via direct monetary investment into demand sectors also creates multipliers by increasing demand and giving DEMAND incentives for business investment.
I’m sorry you were never taught about push pull economics and the effects of increasing aggregate demand. Why dont you supply us some $100 pink crayons and let us know how much “supply” creates an economy.
ImRightYoureWrong 2018-10-06 16:44:18 UTC #186
Again that isnt “trickle down”. That’s just basic multiplier effects and supply/demand. You dont even know what trickle down is
BigBear 2018-10-06 16:45:11 UTC #187
It’s you who is missing the point entirely. You’re not giving examples of “trickle down” economics, which posits that cutting taxes will spur investment. You’re instead giving examples of the economic stimulus provided by building infrastructure. Someone correctly called it a multiplier effect. No one’s arguing against the potential benefits of such projects at all. It’s simply that it’s not tax cutting with the HOPE that private investors will in turn build a hospital, or a stadium, or a new transit line, or something.
TheDoctorIsIn 2018-10-06 16:45:43 UTC #188
I believe that you are the one missing the point - because that’s not what “trickle-down” means at all.
What you are describing is an example of a local multiplier effect.
ImRightYoureWrong 2018-10-06 16:51:29 UTC #189
Oh I get it. It’s hilarious that you see macroeconomics through the len’s of rich people’s yachts.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 17:27:03 UTC #190
You are talking about Keynesian economic theory. I never doubted that you have no use for Supply Side Trickle Down.
Push Pull is a business strategy not an economic theory.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 17:28:23 UTC #191
Oh I get it. It’s hilarious that you see macroeconomics through the len’s of rich people’s yachts
I never stated any such thing. But I’m not surprised that you would belittle a whole segment of the working class that cater to the rich.
TheDoctorIsIn 2018-10-06 17:28:55 UTC #192
I dont think you know what “Keynesian economic theory” means, either.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 17:29:15 UTC #193
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:01:18 UTC #174
Total nonsense but I expect nothing more from you. Zero data. Zero analysis. All talking points, many of which are confused and sometimes contradictory
The only one spouting nonsense is you.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:03:12 UTC #175
Almost certainly heavily subsidized by the government as well
You are still missing the point entirely. Trickle down has nothing to do with the hospital itself and who funded it. It has everything to do with the small businesses that sprout up by the introduction of the hospital.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:05:01 UTC #176
dantes 2018-10-06 15:12:26 UTC #177
Dear St Louis Federal Reserve,
Peek-a-boo, the smartest person in the world.
dantes 2018-10-06 15:12:51 UTC #178
And you criticize others for arrogance.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:21:46 UTC #179
And you criticize others for arrogance
I was being facetious. ImRightYoureWrong was sarcastically knocking the rich and I was returning the favor.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 15:23:33 UTC #180
ear St Louis Federal Reserve,
Peek-a-boo, the smartest person in the world
For someone who supposedly likes to discuss the issues, thus far you haven’t demonstrated any propensity to address my take on trickle down economics. Why is that?
dantes 2018-10-06 15:27:33 UTC #181
I did. Your response was only a ad hominem.
You effectively ended the conversation with such a reply.
reflechissez 2018-10-06 15:37:04 UTC #182
Your “take” is incorrect
MichaelScarn 2018-10-06 16:26:07 UTC #183
Recently a major hospital was built in a neighboring community. Over the intervening years an explosion of growth surrounding that hospital has taken place. Miles of new healthcare businesses have sprung up. Not surprisingly many small businesses have opened their doors to cater to the needs of these new care professionals. I don’t even recognize that stretch of road anymore.
Trickle down economics resulting from that single hospital.
This was a private hospital, funded solely by people who received massive tax incentives to build it?
dantes 2018-10-06 16:31:50 UTC #184
Not to mention hospitals have intrinsic social value at protecting and promoting community health and should be considered necessary infrastructure.
ImRightYoureWrong 2018-10-06 16:42:23 UTC #185
Actually that is exactly what trickle down is all about. I realize DEMs believe trickle down means that the rich will simply give away money to the less wealthy, but that simply isn’t the case.
Again, you fail basic econ 101
. What you are describing are multiplier effects which are outputs of spending velocity. The source of the spending, the ratio of saving vs spending, outputs the velocity across multiple tiers of an economy. The source, when it is applied to top earners, has smaller velocity due to a higher ratio of savings. It also creates unstable speculative investment unless backed by demand. Multipliers via direct monetary investment into demand sectors also creates multipliers by increasing demand and giving DEMAND incentives for business investment.
I’m sorry you were never taught about push pull economics and the effects of increasing aggregate demand. Why dont you supply us some $100 pink crayons and let us know how much “supply” creates an economy.
ImRightYoureWrong 2018-10-06 16:44:18 UTC #186
Again that isnt “trickle down”. That’s just basic multiplier effects and supply/demand. You dont even know what trickle down is
BigBear 2018-10-06 16:45:11 UTC #187
It’s you who is missing the point entirely. You’re not giving examples of “trickle down” economics, which posits that cutting taxes will spur investment. You’re instead giving examples of the economic stimulus provided by building infrastructure. Someone correctly called it a multiplier effect. No one’s arguing against the potential benefits of such projects at all. It’s simply that it’s not tax cutting with the HOPE that private investors will in turn build a hospital, or a stadium, or a new transit line, or something.
TheDoctorIsIn 2018-10-06 16:45:43 UTC #188
I believe that you are the one missing the point - because that’s not what “trickle-down” means at all.
What you are describing is an example of a local multiplier effect.
ImRightYoureWrong 2018-10-06 16:51:29 UTC #189
Oh I get it. It’s hilarious that you see macroeconomics through the len’s of rich people’s yachts.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 17:27:03 UTC #190
You are talking about Keynesian economic theory. I never doubted that you have no use for Supply Side Trickle Down.
Push Pull is a business strategy not an economic theory.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 17:28:23 UTC #191
Oh I get it. It’s hilarious that you see macroeconomics through the len’s of rich people’s yachts
I never stated any such thing. But I’m not surprised that you would belittle a whole segment of the working class that cater to the rich.
TheDoctorIsIn 2018-10-06 17:28:55 UTC #192
I dont think you know what “Keynesian economic theory” means, either.
peek-a-boo 2018-10-06 17:29:15 UTC #193