Economists admit that tax cuts for the rich fail to trickle down

[Peter Griffin]

Employees are a necessary evil for a company, they are the most expensive part of any business and most liability. Employers do not want to help anyone that can't benefit them times 5. What happens when there are 20 billion people and most of the world is automated via robotics and AI?

 

[Secret Chief]

Some companies do, not all but many do support the education of their employees. They pay for classes, provide seminars, create grants. It benefits the companies that do but it is not required.
For a company to succeed it has to focus on profit. An educated workforce will increase profitability. The owners of a company are just people. They suffer from the same lack of education about capitalism as the rest do.

As you say, some do, some don't. In a varied career my experience there were more of the donts. The lowest wage, the maximum profitability were the driving forces.
A little anecdote.
I was talking to the human resources director of a large, long-established insurance company in my capacity of assisting young people to get jobs. I asked about the training that the company offered. She replied they used the JFDI method. This was new to me so I asked what the acronym stood for. Her response was "Just... Do It. I'll leave you to work out what the F stands for."

Many years later, the final company I worked for had much the same attitude.

 

[Nakosis]

IMHO, anyone that hasn't studied Karl Marx's theories of capitalism, are lacking a good understanding of how capitalism works.

I really don't think Marx had a good understanding of how capitalism worked.

He viewed it historically as a class struggle. There is no ruling class in capitalism. Also, he focused only on the economic forces which is a very simplistic view IMO. The is much more to the wealth-gap than economic forces. There is culture, technology, education that influences personal wealth as well. Finally his prediction that class struggle would inevitably lead to revolution, socialism then communism. This has not happened.

 

[Nakosis]

As you say, some do, some don't. In a varied career my experience there were more of the donts. The lowest wage, the maximum profitability were the driving forces.
A little anecdote.
I was talking to the human resources director of a large, long-established insurance company in my capacity of assisting young people to get jobs. I asked about the training that the company offered. She replied they used the JFDI method. This was new to me so I asked what the acronym stood for. Her response was "Just... Do It. I'll leave you to work out what the F stands for."

Many years later, the final company I worked for had much the same attitude.

Insurance is a very communist like idea. They pool everyone's resources and redirect it to those that have the greatest need. I guess they didn't see the need to educate their workforce.

 

[Secret Chief]

Insurance is a very communist like idea. They pool everyone's resources and redirect it to those that have the greatest need. I guess they didn't see the need to educate their workforce.

As I said, a varied career. My final JFDI company was a business research consultancy; Nothing communist about it. But then insurance companies have nothing to do with communism.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I really don't think Marx had a good understanding of how capitalism worked.

He viewed it historically as a class struggle. There is no ruling class in capitalism. Also, he focused only on the economic forces which is a very simplistic view IMO. The is much more to the wealth-gap than economic forces. There is culture, technology, education that influences personal wealth as well. Finally his prediction that class struggle would inevitably lead to revolution, socialism then communism. This has not happened.

I have to respectfully disagree, there is a ruling class, the employers. There is all of those forces, but at the end of the day, profit is the number one motivator. I believe he is correct when he says that capitalism will fail and that will lead to something, I'm not sure what something is yet. The covid response has been a tell tale sign of capitalism failing. The private sector was not able to manage any of that.

 

[Sunstone]

I really don't think Marx had a good understanding of how capitalism worked.

He viewed it historically as a class struggle. There is no ruling class in capitalism. Also, he focused only on the economic forces which is a very simplistic view IMO. The is much more to the wealth-gap than economic forces. There is culture, technology, education that influences personal wealth as well. Finally his prediction that class struggle would inevitably lead to revolution, socialism then communism. This has not happened.

Hm... You might be right after all that Marx had a simplistic view of capitalism. For instance, what are the weaknesses that you've already identified in his notions about the exportation of the proletariat? Why does that seem to be happening today even when it's theoretically impossible for it to happen, given that Marx was so wrong about so many things?

 

[Sunstone]

I really don't think Marx had a good understanding of how capitalism worked.

He viewed it historically as a class struggle. There is no ruling class in capitalism. Also, he focused only on the economic forces which is a very simplistic view IMO. The is much more to the wealth-gap than economic forces. There is culture, technology, education that influences personal wealth as well. Finally his prediction that class struggle would inevitably lead to revolution, socialism then communism. This has not happened.

I, too, believe the moon landings were hoaxes! Glad to see more and more people adopting sensible standards for what constitutes 'evidence'.

 

[Sunstone]

I am not even close to being a Marxist. But I look for insights wherever they can sometimes be found.

 

[Nakosis]

Hm... You might be right after all that Marx had a simplistic view of capitalism. For instance, what are the weaknesses that you've already identified in his notions about the exportation of the proletariat? Why does that seem to be happening today even when it's theoretically impossible for it to happen, given that Marx was so wrong about so many things?

Exportation? Or exploitation?

The exploitation I talked about in an earlier post. The problem being a lack of capitalism being taught in our education system.

 

[Nakosis]

I, too, believe the moon landings were hoaxes! Glad to see more and more people adopting sensible standards for what constitutes 'evidence'.

Poisoning the well. Not much of an argument.

 

[Sunstone]

IMHO, anyone that hasn't studied Karl Marx's theories of capitalism, are lacking a good understanding of how capitalism works.

'Good' is a vague word in this context. I'm not sure how much better it is to tell people who've never studied Marx that many of his insights are useful in understanding various aspects of capitalism, but that's how I'd put it.

One thing I really liked about the Communist Manifesto was how well he summarized many of the benefits capitalism has brought about in people's lives. He actually did it more accurately than many staunch supporters of capitalism have done.

Pretty good for someone who only ever had a simplistic understanding of capitalism.

 

[Sunstone]

Exportation? Or exploitation?

The exploitation I talked about in an earlier post. The problem being a lack of capitalism being taught in our education system.

If you don't know, it's too easy to find out. No need to ask someone else to do your homework.

 

[Sunstone]

Poisoning the well. Not much of an argument.

Poisoning the well applies there? That's a new one on me. Can you lay out for me the logic of that?

 

[Stevicus]

That tax cuts on the rich do nothing much to improve anyone's lives except the rich was no news to economists 20 years ago. I think it would be naive to think it was news even to the 'opinions for hire' whores.

It probably wasn't news to economists, although getting the policymakers to actually believe it - that's another story.

 

[Stevicus]

Ah, but which economists? Economics is not like natural science. There is remarkably little consensus, for something that likes to think of itself as a science. One could almost say, pace Clausewitz, that economics is the continuation of politics by other means.

Yes, you're quite right that economics is not a natural science. In fact, this points up a major pet peeve I have whenever I discuss this topic with people who seem to believe that economics is a natural science and that it has the exacting precision as mathematics.

A common response I've often come across is that those who don't believe in the trickle down theory "obviously know nothing about economics." I get that a lot, even from a few posters around here.

But anyway, the paper in question seems to be this one:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf

Most of it is highly technical statistical analysis, but the conclusion is fairly clear: there is no evidence that tax cuts for the rich benefit the rest of the economy, whether in terms of levels of employment, salary or overall economic growth.

As you say, this is something a lot of us have come to suspect, but it that makes it all the more important to do a piece of rigorous work like this, to substantiate the suspicion.

It's a shame that some people need an academic study before they'll be convinced that water is wet. But, there it is.

 

[Stevicus]

Meaning economists are right when they say what you think?

Not quite.

I noticed the article says it didn't have any effect
one way or the other...so what is wrong with it?

Well, for one thing, it's fiscally irresponsible. We've been on deficit spending, and our national debt is out of control.

 

[Audie]

Give the poor money it gets spent. ...immediately. That's why raising the minimum wage works.

Raising it. How much? How can you figure
out how much?

 

[Audie]

Have you read much of Karl Marx? He presents some intriguing analysis that Capitalism is flawed and ultimately will fail.

That isn't deep.
Everything is flawed. Nothing is forever.

 

[Audie]

Just a quick search pulled up this?
In United States, 15.1% live below the poverty line as of 2010. In Hong Kong, however, that number is 19.9% as of 2016.

Hong Kong is beautiful and certainly has a lot going for it, but shouldn't everyone be able to participate?

Look up how they figure poverty.

Should. Interesting word.
Everybody. Nice ideal. Ideal are
are by their nature inaccessible.

I won't try to explain the social safety net
or demography of Hk, but Google would help if you are interested. The rich- poor gap is huge
of course.