Reality is that it's going to be a K recovery. Unless; there is going to be a stimulus to the economy aka giving people money such as stimulus checks or better yet bringing back the $600 to UI. Giving money to a regular joe will help keep the money flowing in the economy. Now that the money has dried up people are being more careful on what they spend their money on or they just save it which is smart for the person but not the economy. Basically the gov't has to spend money so that people (bottom 50%) are confident in the economy. If the people aren't confident then well, I'm going to be a CFI for a much longer time.

-Daddy

I think more like the Nike Swoosh.

Care to wager? What shall we play for.....?

Definitely a K recovery. Anything given to the top goes into financial products. Anything given to the bottom is spent on booze and rioting. Supporting otherwise insolvent companies can be a slippery slope politically with such a large wage disparity within them.

Although I did not hear it called as such, 2-3 years ago, many were claiming a K recovery. “The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” Before COVID-19, the facts were those at the low end of the income were getting a higher percentage of income increases than those at the top end. Those typically chronically underemployed groups were seeing all time record low unemployment rate. Food for thought.

Good food is often wasted on the unappreciative.....

That is typical late in an economic cycle. Look at the situation right now, the rich have been made whole while the bottom third are experiencing unemloyment at historic levels. Trickle was the key word in "Trickle Down Economics"!

I’ll bite. Skip to 4:31 if you don’t have 10 minutes of your life to spend on understanding wealth inequality. I’ll phrase one ethical question to you regarding creation of wealth. If you create an idea are you entitled to the majority of wealth generated by that idea. Let’s says you have an idea that generates 10,000$ and you cannot do it alone. In fact you need 2,000 people for your idea to work. You decide to pay each of those people 2$ for their part while you keep 6,000$ for the idea that couldn’t function without a great many supports doing all the leg work. Is this ethical? Is this right? That’s late stage capitalism. Also consider how everything today is stock prices value of the company. You work to make the shareholders money. They do nothing but let money sit there in a hypothetical ownership. While you bust your but for a small paycheck. We need to reconsider who actually makes the world go around. It’s not ideas it’s people it has always been people. But today you can be a lazy rich person give money to people and keep majority of profit. That’s late stage capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caBD...&feature=share

... Except for all the wealth that gets ferried off-shore to avoid taxes or hoarded in safe-haven investments. Even the money that gets invested in the stock market only stands to really benefit the shareholders (55% of Americans), and that's only until a crash leaves your average investor holding the bag while the market movers with inside info get out at the top and buy back in at the bottom. Funding an IPO or SPAC generates tech and jobs, but that's a small part of the market.


If anything, giving money to poor people is a lot more likely to 'trickle up' because they're more likely to actually spend it on goods and services, driving the financial engine. I think people should be rewarded for their financial prowess and hard work, and people who want free rides should be punished, but the 'trickle down' theory is just a sales pitch that the rich use to convince suckers that they need lower taxes, which ironically go to pay for the services that those very poor people are most likely to need.


Trickle down might've been useful in 1980, when the top 1% were getting taxes at 70%, but nowadays their tax bracket isn't that much higher than the middle class. The way our financial institution works, it's a lot easier to go from $1M to $10M than from $10k to $100k. From the other side, trickle down makes it harder for new businesses to emerge because the bottom 90% of tax payers are shouldering more of the tax burden, which cuts directly into their necessities, preventing them from ever generating enough capital to get off the ground. Bezos can risk $1M and not care, I can't, and considering we're at record unemployment with a stock market at ATHs, the rich are being rewarded plenty, right now. They've beat the caricature of welfare mamas to death, but for some reason, it keeps working. There's a balance and it's very out-of-whack.

The,uh, guy making the $6k came up with the idea, hired the workers, assumed all the risk for production and reaped the benefits. The $2 earners made wages commiserate with the skill required to put lead in a pencil.

There’s a reason you, the pilot, are paid considerably more than the guy throwing bags in the belly.