225
You mean it was a scam all along?
That's not money raining down on you. It's piss
Trickle down economics is also illegal in the USA. It was attempted by Ford Motors in 1919.
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. (1919), is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a manner for the benefit of his employees or customers.
Ford declared:
My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business.
...in the opinion written by Russell C. Ostrander argued that the profits to the stockholders should be the primary concern for the company directors... The court therefore upheld the order of the trial court requiring that directors declare an extra dividend of $19.3 million. It said the following:
A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
The whole idea of trickle down economics was never going to happen because the first company that would have tried it (again) would have just lost in court and the CEO that authorized it would be fired and removed.
Even beyond the idea of CEOs acting in the financial interest of shareholders, the whole premise of "trickle down" is faulty. Businesses do not hire or raise wages just because they have money. The only reason for a business to hire is because they have work which needs to get done and they cannot get it five with their current workforce. No matter how flush with cash they are, they aren't going to hire unless they have extra work or they anticipate having extra work. The same with raising wages. Unless they cannot hire the people they need or they need to retain certain workers, wages are not going up.
Money "trickles up". When consumers have money, they spend it and it goes into businesses and the pockets of shareholders. In order to keep the velocity of money up, those shareholders need to be taxed to get that money moving again. And the tax cuts for the rich break that cycle.
Early Ford hated bankers and investors. He did some brilliant moves to cut them out and early Ford really seemed to be pro worker. Later Ford was not the same man.
Ford declared:
My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes.
Somehow I have a hard time believing Ford when he says this lol
Don't forget the Kansas trickle down attempt and how it failed in the most epic manner imaginable.
Link? I haven't heard about that one and would like to know more about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment/
https://ips-dc.org/kansas-tried-trickle-economics-didnt-work/
And... apparently some people still want to do it despite its resounding failure...
https://www.fastcompany.com/91137047/kansas-trickle-down-economics
Thank you for those
had to operate […] in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a manner for the benefit of his employees or customers.
Sounds like US, alright.
People have been mocking trickle down economics from day one. Even in 1981 then Vice President George H. W. Bush called it Voodoo Economics to emphasize the bullshit factor. By the early 90s it was already being mocked heavily... and after the economic crash of 2008 people were drawing more attention to it's bullshit. Yet still nothing changes.
I'll let you in on a little secret. It was never meant to. It was all a lie and they knew it.
Original publish date of 2020... So clearly not much of a stir caused by this supported information
People might have been busy thinking about something else at the time.
50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, a quick cursory glance at literally anything says.*
*FTFY
I've been seeing these headlines my whole life, and the only thing that changes is the amount of time. -- 25 years of data disproves trickle-down economics -- Experts agree, 30 years later, trickle-down doesn't work -- After four decades, trickle-down finally debunked -- Thanks economists, but you really don't need to keep researching this; a lack of evidence isn't the problem.
What?! I can’t believe this! They did say it would trickle down, so maybe we haven’t given them enough yet?
Keep working hard, fellas! Maybe next year it will trickle down!
Breaking news: the sky is blue.
The real trickle happens at 100 yrs. Just wait and see.
Damn Bro, it's as if it wad never meant to trickle down or something
Put it on the pile with all the other studies saying the exact same fucking shit
Uh, no duh
Surprise, surprise!
shocked
"Everything worked out." -- The Rich
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
225 points (99.1% liked)
Finanzen
185 readers
1 users here now
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS