Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
So i think you actually agree with the people you are arguing with here.but let’s revisit the discussion.
People point to economic growth numbers and the Stock Market to back up the statement that people are better off under Biden than Trump.
Others point to income to housing ratios, inflation, real wages, etc to say despite “the economy” being better people aren’t better off.
Iggy Oi says. Big surprise the stock market didn’t trickle down
You respond - Well it’s not supposed to.
So in this general discussion I think everyone agrees that
a) the stock market gains to not transfer into improved standard of living or improved outlook on life for the median person
b) Trickle down economics as defined by low taxation on capital gains, corporations, and wealthy wage earners improving the median persons standard of living, doesn’t work.
So if we agree to those two tenants I think we can agree with the following statement
If you have an increasing stock market and you do not have an increasing standard of living that is evidence of trickle down economics as defined above not working.
In an environment where trickle down worked record profits, record stock market highs, should correlate perhaps slightly leading with improving standards of living.
|
Encouraging a business environment where wealthy billionaires invest their money is a plus.
Part of that is creating a cycle where companies are encouraged to go public and share their offerings on the stock market. The entire purpose of this is to help people get 'rich.'
That is exactly what is happening.
If there issues beyond that of deflated wage growth like opendoor pointed out, its rather stupid to sit there and blame the stock market, or even capitalism.
What you want to blame is crony capitalism, where the rich & powerful have aligned themselves with our governments to make sure they become more rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class or lower class.
Its rather obvious this is happening.
However if these so called economic policies would be setup in such a way where economic investment is encouraged, but taxation is fair and reasonable, the end result should be positive.
Just really strange how people whine and complain about these policies but then turn around and say its a net positive that the taxpayer is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars PER job to bring a company like Honda to Canada to build manufacturing plans, while completely ignoring the fact that Honda is rich enough to do that without subsidies.
But we're sold that bag of lies by people in the government who in the end are just padding their bottom line.