General Question

jvgr's avatar

Moral Money Management?

Asked by jvgr (1940points) October 15th, 2008

I’ve been contemplating the republican “trickle down theory” trying to make some sense of it in spite of the lack of evidence that supports the concept.

I’ve come to the conclusion that a fundamental basis for this theory is that those with money, spend their money more wisely, and in their wisdom, their spending is better for society. This would imply, then, that those without money spend what they have unwisely and that their spending is purely for self interest.

Any thoughts

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

Judi's avatar

I think the basic principal is that those with money will spend their money creating jobs for people who spend money and the more people are spending money the better everyone will do. The faulty assumption is that the rich will spend their money and not hoard it. That may be true of some moderately rich folk, but the very rich tend to hoard it or take it overseas where they can get more for their money so they are not moving the money around here where it helps our citizens.

fireside's avatar

I agree with Judi, the theory that giving breaks to the rich will create jobs is faulty.
Sure, it happens, but what about those Corporate CEOs that are earning 7 ot 8 figures?

The only jobs they are creating are for their gardeners and housekeepers. Even if they do start a business at some point, it is usually only a dozen or so of their compadres who all go into consulting.

What do you think George W Bush will do with his $400,000 a year for life salary?
Think he’ll be watching it trickle down to the less fortunate?

jvgr's avatar

Perhaps I was a bit unclear.

I don’t agree with the trickle down theory, I’m asking if:

the theory might have a moral aspect to it (as I’m thinking) that the wealthy have a “higher sense of morality” and, therefore are the better ones to support. I’m not suggesting they do, as it’s clear they don’t. Just wondering if the republican logic might also be thinking along these lines.

I’m just wondering about the republican thinking that might go beyond what the face value of their beliefs are.

dalepetrie's avatar

I honestly don’t think there is a moral aspect to it, if someone sees one, it’s self delusion. I think they’ll SAY they’ll create jobs, with that money (rather than hoard it as Judi pointed out), but that’s folly because if no one has the money to buy the goods and services you produce with those new jobs, what’s the point? You’re better off investing it. I’d say they think investment drives the economy, but it’s not as if the majority of investors are the so-called “Angel Investors” who concentrate on investing in emergent technologies…most people with excess money will invest in more blue chips where they can earn big dividends, and have a say in the operations of a big company if the invest enough, so they can steer that ship in a direction that puts even more money in their pockets (often at the expense of jobs and benefits for the worker bees). So, I think they believe they control the purse strings and pay for everyone else’s survival with their superior skills and intellect, which is why we should give all the money to them. It’s self-delusion, nothing more.

And the problem is, it works on Joe Sixpack, because of the American Dream we’re all sold from an early age. If you work hard, you can be rich someday. People who have NO chance of being rich will buy that argument that hey, it’s not fair to just tax the hell out of the rich because I could be one of them some day.

Judi's avatar

Just the rich republicans. It seems that there are really 2 parties in the Republican party. The fiscally conservative ones that just might buy into your theory, and the “Joe six pack, gimme a beer and a gun and a Bible and I’m happy” Republicans. They usually vote based on a social agenda, and have been convinced since the Regan era that Democrats are the anti-Christ. They are the last hold outs of McCain’s supporters.
I noticed Dale is crafting a response. I’m sure it will be much better than mine :-)

Judi's avatar

I told you Dale would have a great answer!

dalepetrie's avatar

Judi – you said pretty mcuh what I said, only more succinctly (and hit a couple more points I might add). Don’t sell yourself short!

Bri_L's avatar

I am afraid I have never seen anything to indicate to me that the trickle down theory works. It can always be argued by those who support it that it does, but, in my opinion, there is always a disproportionate growth of money for those who have it.

basp's avatar

I don’t think the republican party has ever demonstrated that they have morals.

fireside's avatar

Here’s an explanation of trickle-down economics

What I shall call TDE is clearly intended to be an economic system where there is no significant barrier to the accumulation of wealth by individuals. From the old story that “if the horse has better hay to eat, the birds will eat better” (it being understood that birds eat manure). Reaganomics (to imply one example). If the rich do well, benefits will “trickle down” to the rest. Lower taxes on high income or capital gains will benefit most of the population, etc.

So, wait, are we the birds?
They eat WHAT???

critter1982's avatar

@basp: Do you really believe it is only republicans that have displayed immorality in office? I think it’s government in general.

basp's avatar

I agree I think the same of democrats.
But I don’t think it is true for ‘government in general’. My criticism is aimed at the political component, not the many civil servants who actually have to carry out legislation and are accountable to their jobs.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther