Jim Morin for April 30, 2017

It’s gon’na snow all year from the White House.

The same snow job tried by St. Ronnie, which DIDN’T work, and by Poppy Bush, which DIDN’T work, and by the shrub which DIDN’T work, and guess what, Donnie Dumpsterfire? It still WON’T work!

When the rate of economic growth is slower than the rate of return on capital, then the return on labor is always going to be lower than the return on capital. The whole “jobs creation by lowering taxes” mantra of the right wing is superficially attractive, of course. Who doesn’t want lower taxes? In my bracket, that adds up to a lot of coin. But that approach has been tried, and it’s been proven wrong in practice. It’s fantasy, really, to think otherwise.

The democrats don’t get “jobs creation” either, but they do try harder to understand the actual dynamic involved and they absolutely pay more attention to evidence instead of antiquated ideologies that have been thoroughly debunked. Laffer should be spelled either “laugher” or “cryer” depending on how much income and capital you have working on your behalf.

We’re seeing what happens when Capitalism “wins.” Who knew that, by just living, we were engaged in a contest with Capitalism, and that Capitalism had the House advantage?

Substitute the word “jobs” with PROFITS, and you’ve got the real truth.

If you still believe in that Reagan Trickle Down snowjob, you may be a snowflake.

All that’s needed now is the “too big to fail” spiel.

Oh “John,” we are at it again, aren’t we? well, here’s a Marxist proposal for you. Why don’t we simply increase the estate tax. How about anything over, say, $10 million in today’s money gets taxed at 100%? What do you say? Wouldn’t everyone be better off? I’m serious. Why should we allow massive inheritance? Oh my goodness!

Look, I think markets are fantastic. They seem to self-organize better than any other human system developed so far. And obviously that means that private property is also a good thing. It seems to satisfy humans in ways that commonly-held property does not. Got it. Wealth is terrific for the wealthy, and I’m a big personal fan of being wealthy.

But you have to face facts, massive distortions have grown in the system. These distortions center around the relationship between capital and labor. And the distortions do not seem to be self-correcting. Instead, when the economic system is sufficiently distorted, it upsets the delicate balance between public and private interests. This is why government intervention often makes sense. We are all in this together, don’t forget. The wealthy should never forget those who are struggling. Sure there are malingerers and charlatans. But you can’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

This problem is growing. The bifurcation is evident. Beginning with the educated upper middle class all the way up to the billionaire class, the wealthy are gradually drawing away from those below. This is one of the essential sources of conflict in today’s world. But it’s not the fault of those with less income and wealth. And those of us fortunate enough to be beneficiaries should be thankful and try to help our fellow citizens who are not so fortunate. And government is a big part of that because it can touch EVERYONE.

Suckers!!

As with all the Reps since Reagan, the economy will do well for those who are at the very top and no one else. Meanwhile, they try to pretend like they care for those who are not at the very top and some suckers in the middle class actually fall for it. The same old sad story.

The whole trickle down concept is based on the notion that an employer who has more money than he is accustomed to will use that money to hire new employees. Why would he do that? If the people working there now are getting the job done, there is no reason to hire more. The only reason to hire more is if there is more work for the new people to do. The only reason there would be more work is that more people are buying the product, and the only reason more people would be buying the product is that they can afford to do so when they previously couldn’t. So, the only way to make rich people richer is to give money to the middle and lower classes, so they can pass it on to the rich folks in exchange for their products. That not only gives the rich folks more money, it requires them to employ more people who then have money to buy stuff. Money doesn’t trickle down, but it does a really good job of trickling up.

Please note that Interventor’s post is a spam. He has posted it at least a half dozen times in the last couple of days in exactly the same words with exactly the same insults, so there is no point in replying to him. Besides, he doesn’t care what you have to say, since he already knows so much better than you do—-ask him, he’s got a great brain and all the best words(etc.,etc.) just like his mentor.

@Dianne-In the world where labor is earning, yes, I think you are 100% correct. But if you have enough capital for it to earn and compound, then the employment model you state so clearly doesn’t exactly hold true. Capital, these days, can simply earn more than labor. That’s the obvious thing here. Look, I am in the capital business myself, and that’s why I am there. When I invest, I earn more than when YOU work, these days anyway. I am an investor (earning both current income as well as capital gains, in both the public and private markets). I also get paid for my services in the asset management business. So I get the whole capital vs. labor thing. I work hard for my high income, and even work for some of my gains. But the capital markets themselves are even more generous if you have a lot of money invested in them. Remember everyone, a mere" $5 million invested at 3% is $150,000 a year. Anybody with that money or more doesn’t really have to sell much of their own labor, right?

So these are the realities. You can call my analysis “Marxist” if you like. Doesn’t change the facts I cite. The thing about factual evidence is that it has no political ideology except in the eye of the beholder.

Look out, that’s going to be yellow snow trickling down.

The thing about this snow job is that the dumpster suckers still think it’s Florida sunshine.

Trickle down economics” falsely assumes that the heads of companies actually care about the well being of their employees. If they did, you would not have a CEO making over a million a year in salary while the average employee is making PERHAPS $50,000, and some are making minimum wage.

I heard Trump Casino’s and Trump U are hiring!

Trickle down, how it works, illustrated:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9_818RCcAA_DUE.jpg

Trump’s massive tax cuts will free up lots of money for his pals to invest… overseas. Does anyone think they are so stupid that they can’t figure out how to put their newfound gains in offshore tax havens? Is anyone so stupid as to think Trump doesn’t realize this & that he & his family will gleefully follow suit?

If you want to grow the domestic economy & sustain the middle class workers, you want to put more money in the hands of consumers, not oligarchs.

@"JohnLocke" Crony capitalism is a problem, to be sure, as are the other issues you raise. But capital and labor, common property and private property, collaboration and individual effort are all more fundamental issues. As to volunteer work, etc. Sure, that’s a partial solution, and a noble one. But it doesn’t involve the public sphere, where EVERYONE is involved. Only when we work together can we excel. And government plays a vital role in that. Payment of my large tax obligations helps society at large more comprehensively, more fairly, and more effectively than piecemeal efforts which, by definition are limited and fragmented. This is the human condition. It is our interrelated collaboration as a species that powers our success. And government plays a huge role in that. These truths are self evident.

Now as to the estate tax, there are pluses and minuses to large inheritances. I think the downsides to society far outweigh the benefits to the family involved. Radical stuff, but sensible. Accumulation of great wealth is a way to keep score. Passing the wealth along to the family is a small part of the puzzle and a secondary issue to the personal achievement of wealth. Besides, a large inheritance often hurts the inheritor. I know a lot of very wealthy people who I would define as having >$100 million in net worth.

If that’s snow, why is it brown?

We want to give us rich businessmen huge tax cuts. Period. Republicans no longer have to give reasons to the peons. Either they are Republicans and think this is a good idea (see above) or they aren’t and know it won’t work. But the Republicans have stolen Washington, so Tax Cuts to the rich it is. Let’s see if 4th time is a charm, or if we go right back in the W hole again.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice… Or three times? I’ve lost count of how many times this line of garbage was used, and it’s still a lie.