Reaganomics are broken.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know. I think capitalist when applied to a large fed is as much of a disaster as socialism. They are both failed systems, on the large scale.

I'm pretty sure those are the only options.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you telling me what a "Trickle-up" would really be? 😕

No, what it is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm pretty sure those are the only options.

Libertarianism?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, what it is.

I just made it up. What were you talking about?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Libertarianism?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Can you explain how that's any different from capitalism?

Local.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Local.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I just made it up. What were you talking about?

While Trickle-up economics might be new to you, you did not make it up, sir.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think there's anything in the definition of capitalism saying it needs to be national.

The problem is not with socialism vs capitalism, but with local vs Fed.

Originally posted by Robtard
While Trickle-up economics might be new to you, you did not make it up, sir.

Not that kind of made up. 🙄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not that kind of made up. 🙄

Which kind then?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't really see why you think socialism can't work when most prosperous countries with functional economies use it.

Socialism is never used, purely, in any modern G20 nation.

I know that's not what you said, but some newbs might think that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's a disaster because of the same problems that are affecting every country on Earth right now (cept Norway... guess Socialism really failed them there). You think they would have done better if they were more capitalist?

LOL,

Anytime I get the anti-socialism banter from the right-wing freaks that abound aplenty in Oklahoma, I just give them an emotionless face and say: "Norway. 😐 "

Originally posted by Robtard
Which kind then?

Are you serious? Just because I turned a phrase to make a point, and accidentally hit on a word that matches something that is real, does not mean I am claiming to be the inverter of that real thing. Who do you think I am, Al Gore? 😕

Easy, guy, I initially responded to your question to let you know what Trickle-up economics is, as you said you didn't know. Could have just said "thank you"; left it at that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you serious? Just because I turned a phrase to make a point, and accidentally hit on a word that matches something that is real, does not mean I am claiming to be the inverter of that real thing. Who do you think I am, Al Gore? 😕

You did invert a real thing. What you didn't do is invent a real thing.

Well, more on topic, the US, for a long time, has been experiencing a trickle-up effect.

Execs and board members are getting richer and low-level employees are not keeping pace with their increase. That's a fact.

I don't know about the wealthy, as a whole, though, because every wealthy person is NOT an exec or board member.

But I'd assume that that would cascade to most of the "wealthy" types.

Originally posted by Robtard
Easy, guy, I initially responded to your question to let you know what Trickle-up economics is, as you said you didn't know. Could have just said "thank you"; left it at that.

But my joke about Al Gore was worth it all. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem is not with socialism vs capitalism, but with local vs Fed.

So far, Shak leads with 18 Re:'s

Originally posted by Mindship
So far, Shak leads with 18 Re:'s

Who made you ref? 😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Who made you ref? 😛