The MYTH of Trickle Down Economics (Full Video) | comment

A comment on the above video from youtuber Political Juice:



There is an optimal tax rate that maximizes gov revenue, go above or below it and you'll be suboptimal and decrease revenue.   But it is likely that some will try to argue for an ever lower rate regardless.  Things like bailouts could be viewed as negative rates in some cases.  In the end all real economic activity is based on the use of energy, which at any time is limited, the activity can be maximized up to a limit.  In fact if a tax cut failed to increase revenue in the following years, it should be re evaluated and potentially reversed barring no extenuating circumstances.



Do note that companies like amazon are a threat to most retail stores, and promise to replace many retail stores with a highly automated system with far less workers.   Innovation will lead to increased automation and high unemployment.



Regards intel it used its vast power to make unfair monopolistic practices some say involving suppliers and vendors that strangled amd, affecting the quality of amd's products for years.  Intel was fined for its actions. After squelching amd's quality, it started stagnating in its own products, producing products that were minor improvements year on year and charging exorbitant prices.   Amd managed to survive intel's abuses, and even though being an underfunded underdog, recently released the innovative ryzen architecture, which has surprised intel and forced them to cut prices and attempt to increase innovation.



Regards pension funds, iirc, Buffet bet the S.P 500 index fund would beat actively managed funds, and it did.   These overpaid people are paid exorbitant fees to inefficiently manage resources to produce less money than index funds, a needless waste.



As for the idea that some people put in the money, the monetary system is merely a token system to bid for the limited finite resources available, natural resources that are the inheritance of all mankind, not some particular family lineages.   Inherited or earned, it is like a vote from the population for you to be able to manage more resources.  If resources concentrate on the hands of those fit to better manage, it increases wealth and innovation.



But the votes of the majority even if they don't realize what they are doing, are only to be tolerated so long as they don't lead to rampant abuse and inefficiency.  The majority may give money and power to cult leaders, to snake oil salesmen, etc. they give money in excess for no reason at all.  So the majority says X person should have the right to make a large chunk of resources their private property?



   Whether they do it with 'money' or with actual votes, voting for a totalitarian dictator, their choices can be questioned.  They elect presidents and governments, and things go well, they elect totalitarian dictators and things go south.   Same happens with what they do with their money, while on the short term it may not lead to such extreme consequences, it can still lead to issues.  But in the long term there are problems.   Income inequality is a fair part of the system up to a level, but extreme income inequality that results from the inevitable long term concentration of wealth is not.