Giving tax holidays, breaks, incentives etc… to companies when it has been shown to not significantly increase hiring is trickle down.
Look at any of the current “jobs” bills, they re not talking about public works.
Obama’s jobs bill is trickle down.
Yes, my original point as clarified is that, outside of their role as a consumer, government is limited in their ability to create jobs.
Your refusal to even address that question after I clarified my position is textbook red herring tactics.
I will assume you concede the point and move on.
You assume wrongly. But feel free to move on.
And the fact that infrastructure spending created jobs has nothing to do with my claim that the government has limited ability to “create jobs” through jobs legislation that provides tax incentives, tax breaks or monetary rewards.
Meaning Rick Perry did not “create” one million jobs in Texas.
If you look back I say my concern is that we reduce tax intake with these plans and they do not produce jobs. This reduces the money available to do core government services that do create jobs.
You can not claim that the current Obama jobs bill is any way related to the interstate system or hoover dam, it is NOT a public works system.
I can not believe you wrote something that dumb. We actually do make things in America. We build bridges and mix concrete without China’s help. Construction does not involve exotic technologies that we can not supply here. If there is an occasional item we can’t supply. I am sure the construction company can obtain a variance.
But is left on their own. a company would but every item from China or Korea to make more money. that would defeat half the purpose, to help the American economy. They would hire Mexican workers to lower payroll again diminishing the effect of the program.
Getting workers on the payroll again has a multiplier effect. It increases demand for restaurants, shows and bars. It allows more people to buy items that allows a company to justify more workers. That in turn creates a bigger tax base ,making us more able to work on deficits.
Demand is the key element in fixing the economy. Buying abroad has a far less effect than purchasing locally.
What if the foreign product is underpriced shit, and toxic to boot?
Sure… Chinese drywall looked like a bargain… but now when I do drywall the customer wants assurance it was made in the US, or at least NOT in China, no matter how much cheaper the Chinese stuff is due to all the problems that arose from it.
A quick google brought me these names:
Bergey Windpower
Clipper Windpower
DeWind (USA/German venture)
Nordic Windpower
Northern Power Systems
PacWind
Southwest Windpower
Admittedly I haven’t researched any of those, but really, if a 30 second google can find US alternatives to GE it sort of undermines that particular argument.
More likely, the only thing those American workers can *afford *is Wal-Mart and cheap crap from China
Well, there’s exploitation, and there there is no income at all which sucks even worse.
I can’t believe you wrote something that insulting.
So can we conclude that perhaps more should go into the decision process than simply “made in America”? Or simply “lowest price available.”
You know that’s not the first time you’ve made that assumption about something I wrote. There is a middle in between two extremes.
Or do you still think sex offenders should be allowed to adopt? You did say you want to make it easier to adopt.
And are any of them better than all of the foreign competitors, which is the point of that particular argument you’re trying to undermine.
Tomato, tomato.
So you’re okay with exploitation? Would you like the minimum wage lowered? Working conditions made worse? Safety requirements removed?
gonzomax:
That’s not right. Trickle down - whether it works or not - is cutting taxes on the wealthy in the hopes that they will use the extra cash for consumer products, the increased demand for which will cause jobs to be created, or for investment capital, which will allow the companies being invested in to hire workers. There’s no need for “for some unknown reason” snark here.
And therein lies the fallacy of that economic theory. The wealthy already have enough money to buy whatever consumer goods they want; that’s why they are called “the wealthy”. Any additional income they receive through tax cuts just goes into their portfolio as investments, which the economy don’t need right now. There is no shortage of capital holding down job creation; there is a shortage of demand, because those who are the real consumers that drive demand (the “not-wealthy”) are tapped out. Any government stimulus should be targeted directly at them through direct job creation. The wealthy will reap benefits anyway, through “trickle up” economics, as their businesses and investments grow when consumers begin spending again, more than offsetting any tax increases through true economic growth.
Why is this so hard for conservatives to understand? Personally, I think they understand it perfectly well, but they are just too lazy to earn money the old fashioned way, by pursuing consumers. They would rather grow their portfolios through tax cuts alone, paying less and less for the abundant government services that enabled their wealth accumulation in the first place.
You know damn well that NOT what I said. I ask you to retract that accusation as it is absolutely false.
YOU are the only one to suggest that. No one else here has.
You stated that the only windmill company in the US was GE. Clearly, that was in error.
As stated, I have no researched them. Since you’re interested in the topic, and you now have a list of names, feel free to look into them.
No, don’t be ridiculous! I merely stated that exploitation might be preferable to either starving or freezing to death. That doesn’t make it right or healthy.
No more false than the things you accused me of. You’re welcome to retract the misleading statements you made about me, until then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
You really should have done the extra 15sec to make sure you know what you’re talking about.
Bergey produces **small **wind turbines for personal use.
Clipper is owned by United Technologies, which is massive. Still relatively new to turbines.
Nordic is also producing relatively **small **turbines, which is based on Swedish developments, been around since 2007.
Northern Power also produces **small **turbines, now a multinational.
PacWind makes the vertical style turbines, not sure they’re seeing a lot of commercial use yet.
Southwest Windpower also produces very **small **turbines.
Which brings us back to GE and maybe Clipper has US based companies providing large scale wind turbines. Point here being that in a globalized economy, it’s possible that the best company for the job isn’t going to be American.
So what does that actually mean? That exploitation might be preferable?
OH, now you qualify it with “small” vs. “big” instead of just flat out saying “Only GE makes windmills in the US”. Nice sliding goalposts.
Fear itself:
I’m not saying that trickle-down doesn’t have its flaws. But there’s real arguments, like yours, and there’s ignorant snark, like saying “for some unknown reason they’ll create jobs,” like Underpants Gnomes, which is what I was replying to.
I always thought that “trickle down” did not refer to the wealthy buying stuff with their tax breaks, but rather referred to them using the extra cash to invest in the economy (by investing in companies, stocks, capital equipment etc.)
If the trickle down theory just referred to the wealthy buying consumer stuff… it does not make any difference who gets the extra cash - the poor would also buy consumer stuff. So it would make no difference who got the tax break.
As has been pointed out, where trickle down does not seem to work is that the wealthy do not necessarily invest in the economy with their extra cash from the tax breaks. Simply buying stocks and bonds for their portfolio does not translate into an improved economy. At the moment, most would not invest the extra cash in the market anyway - they’d put it in treasuries or other safe haven investments. Or send it to Switzerland. Also, companies are currently sitting on a huge pile of cash and are doing nothing with it anyway.
Kinda the Prisoner’s Dilemma, isn’t it? If all these guys hoarding their cash were to take a leap of faith and start ordering manufactured goods, hiring workers, that sort of thing, then it increases the chances that the economy recovers and they all benefit. But if they all hang on grimly waiting for the other lemming to jump first, then they all lose.
And, the best possible solution for the single company is to hang on to it and for everybody else to let 'er rip. If things go well, they are in an excellent position to leverage the benefits, if it goes straight to hell, they still got a buttload of cash when liquidity will be king.
I know! We’ll say do it for your country! “We’re not asking you to take a bullet for Obama, just risk all your money!”
Yeah! That’ll work.
Euphonious Polemic:
Yes, except that it’s the rich who are paying the higher percentage of their income in taxes, so if the goal is to get money from a tax break is likely to get back into the economy, it’s that tax money that stands most to be liberated, not the poor’s paltry sums.
But tax breaks for the rich don’t put money back into the economy. Any consumer goods they buy will be relatively trivial. There is nothing to invest in these days. All the money will do is to bid up the prices of stocks and such, which does not help.
Though the poor will get less per capita, they will spend all of it and there are lots more of them.
In any case gonzo’s so-called snark isn’t far off. No one supporting trickle down seems to be able to explain why it would create more jobs except through magic. When you start talking demand, they change the subject.
If you give a tax break that totals (say) 1 billion dollars to 1 million middle-of-the-road taxpayers, each will get $1000. Most folks will spend this on consumer items, or will pay off debts.
If you give a tax break that totals 1 billion dollars to 1000 wealthy individuals who have most everything they could ever need, what do you think they will do with the extra $1 million dollars? Probably stick it in an interest bearing account, or send to Switzerland to keep the rest of their money company.