The only one spouting nonsense is you.
You are still missing the point entirely. Trickle down has nothing to do with the hospital itself and who funded it. It has everything to do with the small businesses that sprout up by the introduction of the hospital.
You really don’t have a clue do you?
Dear St Louis Federal Reserve,
You are nonsense.
Peek-a-boo, the smartest person in the world.
And you criticize others for arrogance.
I was being facetious. ImRightYoureWrong was sarcastically knocking the rich and I was returning the favor.
For someone who supposedly likes to discuss the issues, thus far you haven’t demonstrated any propensity to address my take on trickle down economics. Why is that?
I did. Your response was only a ad hominem.
You effectively ended the conversation with such a reply.
Your “take” is incorrect
This was a private hospital, funded solely by people who received massive tax incentives to build it?
Not to mention hospitals have intrinsic social value at protecting and promoting community health and should be considered necessary infrastructure.
Again, you fail basic econ 101. What you are describing are multiplier effects which are outputs of spending velocity. The source of the spending, the ratio of saving vs spending, outputs the velocity across multiple tiers of an economy. The source, when it is applied to top earners, has smaller velocity due to a higher ratio of savings. It also creates unstable speculative investment unless backed by demand. Multipliers via direct monetary investment into demand sectors also creates multipliers by increasing demand and giving DEMAND incentives for business investment.
I’m sorry you were never taught about push pull economics and the effects of increasing aggregate demand. Why dont you supply us some $100 pink crayons and let us know how much “supply” creates an economy.
Again that isnt “trickle down”. That’s just basic multiplier effects and supply/demand. You dont even know what trickle down is
It’s you who is missing the point entirely. You’re not giving examples of “trickle down” economics, which posits that cutting taxes will spur investment. You’re instead giving examples of the economic stimulus provided by building infrastructure. Someone correctly called it a multiplier effect. No one’s arguing against the potential benefits of such projects at all. It’s simply that it’s not tax cutting with the HOPE that private investors will in turn build a hospital, or a stadium, or a new transit line, or something.
I believe that you are the one missing the point - because that’s not what “trickle-down” means at all.
What you are describing is an example of a local multiplier effect.
Oh I get it. It’s hilarious that you see macroeconomics through the len’s of rich people’s yachts.
You are talking about Keynesian economic theory. I never doubted that you have no use for Supply Side Trickle Down.
Push Pull is a business strategy not an economic theory.
I never stated any such thing. But I’m not surprised that you would belittle a whole segment of the working class that cater to the rich.
I dont think you know what “Keynesian economic theory” means, either.
Again with Keynesian economic theory.