So it's not because they are a bunch of greedy bastards who worship Lucifer?

 

reinforcing this comment.

they reward in him billion only because he revived the company from late 90s into a brand name now.


if it wasn't for him, there would be no ipod, no iphone, no vista, etc.. and the list goes on.

he deserves all the wealth he has achieved and same goes for the google founders who are also on a $1 salary.

 

So the so-called "trickle down" economy works then?

 

Economics might be a 'social science' but the vast majority of its root concepts are based on things that already happen. The "graphs" are just molds of specific actions in a "vaccuum" of sort so it's easier to understand singular modifications to any input.

I think the average person would be blown away by how accurately they actually follow the vast majority of idealogies currently taught in economics, from developmental economics to labor economics to econometrics.

I personally find it sad/amusing/interesting how little the average 'consumer' realizes why he does what he does. Reminds me of medicine a few hundred years ago when blood-letting was the remedy for all. Now it's credit cards and mortgage refinances. It "works" if you don't know any better.

 

The trickle down effect is more or less impossible to measure scientifically.

However, it is generally considered over the long term a nation's tax base MUST come from the rich/upper middle class and in order to acheive effective social services such as health/transportation/education there MUST be a flexible and stable tax base.

So the trickle down effect isn't exactly "straight" down but it's a long term process that has and does work. If you've studied in depth any developing nation's failure/success the first challenge is determining how to get a decent tax base so you can uplift the poor. With globalization as it is today that process is complex but not necessarily more difficult. Capital flight/exchange rate issues are difficult to contend with but on the flip side you can turn a nation of only rice eating villagers in to a lamborghini owning, steak eating batch of wealthy Koreans etc. in the matter of a couple decades.

Most east asian countries have already done it and latin america is making slow progress but has yet to fully recover from their past mistakes in policy, mainly indebtedness due to Import Substitution Industrialization instead of the 'asian tiger' method of letting the private sector work out the kinks in the export system.

There's your economics lesson of the day, no charge this time.

 

Only if conditions exist to allow it, and to support it. They do not exist in today's world, and certainly not in the bizzaro world conjured in dyhappy's head.

 

vtec9, your post refering to Bill Gates is an effect of the 'trickle-down' economy in which an economy focuses more or less on increasing the wealth of those that already have it in order to up lift the poor sometime in the future. So.. yea.

 

One a side-note, we can point out people like Alex Rodriguez (A-Rod) in baseball.

Was offered 250 mill contract!!!! and turned it down. What does he contribute to society? I don't think anyone's heard anything about him contributing. Maybe he is the best player in baseball, yet during his time he has not seen one world series! It purely is greedy, or maybe just listening to his greedy agent too much, to turn down 250 mill just to set ANOTHER all-time baseball pay record.

It is politically incorrect to say professional athletes do deserve their huge income, yet in reality they do earn it. Their body, their physique and talent is their business. They put it to work and we, the people, pay to see them perform. We take a gamble with our money to either be disappointed or ecstatic, and no matter what the turn out; they still get their income for performing bad/good.

Ending, I think its sad that A-rod turned down 250 mill because he thinks he deserves more =/

 

This is not a good example of "deserving" wealthy people as I know the case of the "rich Koreans" you mention is a true example of "being in the right place at the right time" or having a couple of acres of land at the right place at the right time in a tiny country that doesn't have enough acres to begin with. Most of these "over-night millionaires" are under-educated hicks who spends their weekends buying Ferraris and Luis Vitton hadbags for their next girl friends in line but have NO interest NOR the ability to create jobs for the less fortunate (even smarter perhaps deserving) people.


I asked because a lot of people seem to think that our system is perfect as is. As good as it is, it can be better, no? Artificial cap might be a little harsh, but I'm all for more progressive tax rate.

 

1-It doesn't matter if A-Rod donates 1%, 10% or 95% of his money. It's his money to do with as he sees fit.

2-No one "forced" the Yankees to offer him that 250million dollar contract, they saw it as an investment. Could they have gotten 25 players at 10million each that might have been as good or better as A-Rod? Perhaps. But the Yankees took a risk on A-Rod and offered the deal.