a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00
kleinbl00  ·  3138 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

An easy one!

(not)

The argument for "trickle-down economics" is that the wealthy will spend it, and that spending is a stimulus that helps everyone. The argument against is not that the wealthy will hoard it, it's that they'll spend it on things that are a lot less impactful on other taxpayers.

One Gulfstream G650 is $65 million. Say you have a stimulus that lets ten more billionaires buy G650s. That's $650 million into the economy of Savannah, GA, Long Beach, CA, dozens of other places where subcontractors work, etc. Those ten jets are a real economic stimulus for maybe 20,000, maybe 30,000 people.

But maybe eight of them don't buy Gulfstreams. Maybe eight of them buy bigger mansions. That already exist. That happen to be in Monaco, Bermuda, St. Tropez, Kingston, etc. So that's maybe 500 of your $650 million that didn't give anyone a job. A lot of it stone-cold left the country.

Now instead of a $650 million gulfstream stimulus, you decide to rebuild some roads. Best guess? $4k per mile, you're rebuilding 162,000 miles of highway. Center for American Progress estimates that's 120,000 jobs created. And it's really tough to off-shore that shit. Besides which, now everybody can use that road, not just ten billionaires. Liz Warren has said a thing or two about infrastructure and the leverage effect it has. She's a clever lady. I'll bet she's anti-G650.

it's a different argument than "quantitative easing increases wealth economy." The argument against "trickle down" is it why would you want a trickle when you can have a flood?





briandmyers  ·  3138 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It was apparently tried in the 1890's - didn't work then, either. It was called "horse-and-sparrow" theory - 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'

kleinbl00  ·  3138 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I'm reasonably sure Keynes himself called bullshit on trickle-down.

briandmyers  ·  3138 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Indeed - Keynesian economics is sometimes called "trickle-up". As I understand it, Keynesian economics is more about stimulating a sluggish economy, by lowering interest rates, public-works spending, etc; whatever works; but I'm no expert on it.

b_b  ·  3138 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    As I understand it, Keynesian economics is more about stimulating a sluggish economy...

I think that's where people misunderstand Keynes. I'm no expert either, but Keynes was for stimulating the economy by government spending and other tools in economic downturns, but also for raising taxes and cutting spending during good times. We always only hear about the downturn half, but the problem is the downturn half doesn't work so well when you're always cutting taxes and encouraging spending independent of what the economy is doing. For example, during the boom between the dot com bubble and the housing bubble, what did we (the US) do? Cut taxes, spent a trillion dollars on a war, and encouraged people who couldn't afford it to borrow as much money as they possibly could, all while keeping interest rates low enough that those poor people could afford it (kind of...in the immediate term...yay interest only loans!). Leave it to W to fuck up a boom.

kleinbl00  ·  3138 days ago  ·  link  ·  

One of these days I'll read the guy. I just gave up on Mark Horowitz. I thought I was a high-fivin' white guy but I don't start my chapters with Nas lyrics.

briandmyers  ·  3138 days ago  ·  link  ·  
kleinbl00  ·  3138 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yeah. That douchecamel.

Ryan Holiday recommended the book at one point, without mentioning that it's a VC bragging about how rough it is being a VC because you need to lay people off without pissing off the people who stay. Cue some bullshit DMX quote.

user-inactivated  ·  3138 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    It's a different argument than "quantitative easing increases wealth economy." The argument against "trickle down" is it why would you want a trickle when you can have a flood?

Hmm. That's actually a pretty compelling argument, and one I can get behind. Thanks for taking your time to share a thing or two tonight.