-- Posted by Mein Alias at 7:57 pm on July 1, 2009 I've thought this up in my free time with my many arguments with my imaginary conservative friend, so sorry if you've heard it before. My Trickle Up Theory uses not the pyramid of population that the Trickle Down Theory relies on, which has the wealthiest 3% owning 50% of the country's wealth at the top echelon. Instead, I do the pyramid by bank account size, with the vast majority of people fitting at the top, with zero funds and thousands of dollars in debt, all the way to the bottom at the broadest base with the 3% sliver. My theory is based on this hypothetical. What if Obama gave every man, woman, and child $1,000,000 in cash to spend on toys, store in their bank account, and stick up their ass for fun? 1. People would immediately pay off their debt, including mortgages and buy homes. This would fix both lending companies and the real estate crisis. 2. People would spend the rest on bullshit they don't need. All private industries would receive a boost of total income immediately. 3. Inflation would rise for a few months as the dumbest spent their money on frivolous objects. Once it would be apparent that milk would no longer sell $1000 for half a gallon, it would return to normal eventually. 4. Salaries would rise, as employers could afford to do so. 5. People with a brain stem would secure some of their funds in a bank. Namely, the upper middle class and beyond. This would further help the ailing banking industry. What do you think about this, as apposed to the "Treat the Wealthy and the Wealth will Spread" philosophy most Republicans hold? -- Posted by acausedelle at 8:01 pm on July 1, 2009 People don't know how to spend money though, and eventually they will return to the amount of money that they had before. Unless they have had some sort of enlightening, they aren't going to change the way that they buy things. -- Posted by Mein Alias at 8:06 pm on July 1, 2009 Correct, but they will, in the process, spend it on the aforementioned. The entire point is that the idiotic masses of America will buy iPhones and other shit they don't need. It's not supposed to improve the quality of living indefinitely, it's supposed to be an idea for how stimulus should be done. Very large cash grants should help.. everyone. -- Posted by acausedelle at 8:13 pm on July 1, 2009 Other than what I said, I think that it would be better than what we currently have now. -- Posted by Moridin at 8:54 pm on July 1, 2009 Quote: from Mein Alias at 5:57 am on July 2, 2009 I've thought this up in my free time with my many arguments with my imaginary conservative friend, so sorry if you've heard it before. My Trickle Up Theory uses not the pyramid of population that the Trickle Down Theory relies on, which has the wealthiest 3% owning 50% of the country's wealth at the top echelon. Instead, I do the pyramid by bank account size, with the vast majority of people fitting at the top, with zero funds and thousands of dollars in debt, all the way to the bottom at the broadest base with the 3% sliver. My theory is based on this hypothetical. What if Obama gave every man, woman, and child $1,000,000 in cash to spend on toys, store in their bank account, and stick up their ass for fun? 1. People would immediately pay off their debt, including mortgages and buy homes. This would fix both lending companies and the real estate crisis. 2. People would spend the rest on bullshit they don't need. All private industries would receive a boost of total income immediately. 3. Inflation would rise for a few months as the dumbest spent their money on frivolous objects. Once it would be apparent that milk would no longer sell $1000 for half a gallon, it would return to normal eventually. 4. Salaries would rise, as employers could afford to do so. 5. People with a brain stem would secure some of their funds in a bank. Namely, the upper middle class and beyond. This would further help the ailing banking industry. What do you think about this, as apposed to the "Treat the Wealthy and the Wealth will Spread" philosophy most Republicans hold? This is nonsense. Where would this million dollar come from? From the sand? No, wrong taxes they themselves paid. Epic fail. -- Posted by Mein Alias at 9:03 pm on July 1, 2009 Epic fail? You call yourself an intellectual? If that's the only defense you can come up with to protect your silly feel good ideologies, then you should take them elsewhere. The money comes from the rich. -- Posted by Audioblood at 9:04 pm on July 1, 2009 You are suggesting that Obama should spend $304,059,724,000,000 giving everyone, including the completely irresponsible cash grants? An amount that massive, even half that, is absurd. Where do you suppose this money would come from? Many government services would be unable to continue operating, and many people would likely lose their jobs. But that's fine since everyone has a million dollars, right? No. Because just as you said, people would begin to raise prices astronomically, and the economy would begin falling apart even more. Now, suddenly people who were barely getting by are spending - let's say - a thousand on a half gallon of milk because they have no choice will be hopeless and pissed because there would be stricter regulations on aid services, and even though there aren't jobs to be had now, there would be even less. It's not like people would wait for years after it was distributed for inflation to rise before they would start gouging. I hate to be so blunt, but that is just a terrible idea. It would destroy the value of the dollar, along with a slew of whole other bullshit that just would not be necessary. It is proven that markets work in cycles. The "recession" is kind of like global warming. It's something that occurs naturally, but politicians and shady scientists are making money by explaining it to people in a way that makes it seem like something interesting and preventable is happening. True, we could use better government and regulation, but the world market would still fluctuate. It's all about living now. Super-powers would rather compete against each other for some bullshit sense of national pride than even-out resource distribution and accomplish the same thing we're doing with our spare time a lot faster, together. This is part of why markets fluctuate as they do. -- Posted by Mein Alias at 9:12 pm on July 1, 2009 Quote: from Audioblood at 9:04 pm on July 1, 2009 The "recession" is kind of like global warming. It's something that occurs naturally, but politicians and shady scientists are making money by explaining it to people in a way that makes it seem like something interesting and preventable is happening. I stopped taking you seriously at this point. -- Posted by tell me again at 9:21 pm on July 1, 2009 Nothing that dramatic would occur. 1 million isn't an inconceivably large amount. People would want to buy $3m+ houses and real estate will go nuts. And once again people won't be able to repay their debt. Short-sighted people might also quit their jobs and confuse the economy further. -- Posted by Mein Alias at 9:46 pm on July 1, 2009 Quote: from tell me again at 9:21 pm on July 1, 2009 Nothing that dramatic would occur.   1 million isn't an inconceivably large amount. People would want to buy $3m+ houses and real estate will go nuts. And once again people won't be able to repay their debt. Short-sighted people might also quit their jobs and confuse the economy further. You've made the most sense thus far. I wish I knew the answer to the perfect society. However, I do not think Conservatism is it. -- Posted by Jasonzlpa at 9:55 pm on July 1, 2009 Quote: from Audioblood at 11:04 pm on July 1, 2009 You are suggesting that Obama should spend $304,059,724,000,000 giving everyone, including the completely irresponsible cash grants? An amount that massive, even half that, is absurd. Where do you suppose this money would come from? Many government services would be unable to continue operating, and many people would likely lose their jobs. But that's fine since everyone has a million dollars, right? No. Because just as you said, people would begin to raise prices astronomically, and the economy would begin falling apart even more. Now, suddenly people who were barely getting by are spending - let's say - a thousand on a half gallon of milk because they have no choice will be hopeless and pissed because there would be stricter regulations on aid services, and even though there aren't jobs to be had now, there would be even less. It's not like people would wait for years after it was distributed for inflation to rise before they would start gouging.   I hate to be so blunt, but that is just a terrible idea. It would destroy the value of the dollar, along with a slew of whole other bullshit that just would not be necessary. It is proven that markets work in cycles. The "recession" is kind of like global warming. It's something that occurs naturally, but politicians and shady scientists are making money by explaining it to people in a way that makes it seem like something interesting and preventable is happening. True, we could use better government and regulation, but the world market would still fluctuate. It's all about living now. Super-powers would rather compete against each other for some bullshit sense of national pride than even-out resource distribution and accomplish the same thing we're doing with our spare time a lot faster, together. This is part of why markets fluctuate as they do. You took everything I was about to say and said it.  It wouldn't help at all, there would be an inflation so massive that it would eventually equal out to where the value of the dollar vs. the price of goods is just a scale model of what it is now.  If anything, it'd just make things harder for people, considering when everyone got their money, they would most likely retire.  Well, after everyone retires, who's going to do all the jobs?  Run the stores, the power plants, sanitation company, medical areas, etc.  The county would completely collapse. -- Posted by Audioblood at 9:56 pm on July 1, 2009 Quote: from Mein Alias at 9:12 pm on July 1, 2009 Quote: from Audioblood at 9:04 pm on July 1, 2009 The "recession" is kind of like global warming. It's something that occurs naturally, but politicians and shady scientists are making money by explaining it to people in a way that makes it seem like something interesting and preventable is happening. I stopped taking you seriously at this point. You apparently never read the first part. Where do you think this money will come from? Obama will just shit out one million dollars for every man, woman and child? Money represents resources. You can't hand out that much money and expect the federal government to not become unstable. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 11:27 am on July 2, 2009 Where the hell is Obama going to get the backing for 300 trillion dollars? -- Posted by Mein Alias at 11:42 am on July 2, 2009 I pulled the figure out of my ass. Reducing it to something like $50,000 and then only giving it to to the bottom 50% would be more reasonable. Regardless, that would still allow for all the above to happen. What you guys are missing though is that companies will need to employ more workers to meet up with the surge in demand. As more people are employed, demand will actually stabilize at a higher rate than it is now. $50,000 also is a better figure because it would totally rule out any hopes of retiring on that money, yet still allow people to pay off bills, buy a car, or even make a hefty down payment on a home. And, again, the money would come from the wealthy. If you appropriate even a fraction of the taxes from the top 3% this money could be raised before Obama's re-election. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 12:29 pm on July 2, 2009 So you give the bottom 50% 50 grand each and nothing to the top fifty percent? The top 5% is whom have the most money, that leaves another 45% of pretty wealthy to moderately well-off people who get nothing. Why should they agree to this plan? And regardless, where will that seventeen trillion dollars come from, eh? You can't just print tons of money and expect that to solve anything. Obama cannot appropriate 17 trillion dollars. The wealthy do not have that to give, and even if they did, you can't just take their wealth. -- Posted by Fauna at 3:46 pm on July 2, 2009 It would also result in all low-level employees quitting their jobs, also, presumably. Why work as a hospital cleaner or on a till if you're a millionaire? Well, until inflation hit and a million meant nothing. -- Posted by Mein Alias at 6:49 pm on July 2, 2009 There used to be something called budgeting. If the Government did not have enough money to do something, they would not do it. Then, they would save money through their taxes to afford this service if they really wanted it. The Government, whether under the control of Democrats or Republicans, do not seem to understand that America's presses actually print money based off of the gold in their possession and China isn't a fucking ATM. Then again, this is a bureaucratic problem. Assuming that people could balance their checkbooks in Capitol Hill, my idea would work. -- Posted by Mein Alias at 6:49 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Fauna at 3:46 pm on July 2, 2009 It would also result in all low-level employees quitting their jobs, also, presumably. Why work as a hospital cleaner or on a till if you're a millionaire? Well, until inflation hit and a million meant nothing. Thank you for reading the first post and then neglecting the post right below it. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 7:25 pm on July 2, 2009 No it would not. You can't just give out 17 trillion dollars. You can't collect it, you can't simply print it without backing, so you cannot distribute it. Money is meaningless without backing. Not only that, but I think that with the paying off of loans and debts and mortgages, the economy would crumble again, as all the organizations that profit from the interest rates, and from loans and debts would have no more income. I think the "progress" would be short lived. -- Posted by Fauna at 7:42 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Mein Alias at 2:49 am on July 3, 2009 Thank you for reading the first post and then neglecting the post right below it. If you massively change the idea in your OP mid-topic, you might want to edit the OP so people know what you're now talking about. You lose the problem of having everyone in the working and middle-classes simply retiring with your update - you still have the slightly unworkable problem of not just being able to print out all of this money and hope for the best - how are you going to "get" trillions of dollars? I think you're massively overestimating the top 3%'s tax contributions, I also don't think this contribution from the wealthiest is just "going spare" for fun experiments. -- Posted by Audioblood at 10:17 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Mein Alias at 6:49 pm on July 2, 2009 There used to be something called budgeting. If the Government did not have enough money to do something, they would not do it. Then, they would save money through their taxes to afford this service if they really wanted it. Wikipedia: The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:   * Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (-17.9%)          o $695 billion (+4.9%) - Social Security          o $453 billion (+6.6%) - Medicare          o $290 billion (+12.0%) - Medicaid          o $0 billion (-100%) - Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)          o $0 billion (-100%) - Financial stabilization efforts          o $11 billion (+275%) - Potential disaster costs          o $571 billion (-15.2%) - Other mandatory programs          o $164 billion (+18.0%) - Interest on National Debt    * Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+7.0%) You will notice 3.55 trillion is nowhere near the double digits. And that is the ENTIRE U.S. budget, which accounts for all of its receipts, including taxes. You are suggesting we could actually come up with an amount bigger than the U.S. budget to divide amongst the citizens? Obama has made some changes, particularly within Medicare, which can affect you, and Social Security, which affects you if you've ever actually worked for anything before acquiring success. There are no doubt those who feel very strongly about these issues, and would be extremely displeased if they were retracted. A possibly reasonable amount would be within the 1-500 range. Sure, 500 dollars would be cool, but even that's not likely. And I really just don't think it's a good idea with $11,523,473,531,768.61 in public debt. We literally owe the world 3.25 times the federal yearly budget. Including 61 CENTS. I can envision the hardcore foreign nationalists hoarding U.S. cash bonds just to see the economy suffer later. -- Posted by medjai at 11:49 pm on July 2, 2009 That would kill the dying system we have. If everyone in america paid off all their debt the economy would collapse -- Posted by Blackadder at 8:56 am on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Mein Alias at 5:03 am on July 2, 2009 Epic fail? You call yourself an intellectual? If that's the only defense you can come up with to protect your silly feel good ideologies, then you should take them elsewhere. The money comes from the rich. a) No, Moridins right. you are a retard. b) and moreover, you are a fraud, this is not your own idea. evidence for both a and b can be found here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/fixeconomy.asp