From: pankaj@bass.bu.edu (Pankaj Tyagi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: TRICKLE-DOWN: Let us thank the conservatives!
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:39:56 GMT
Reply-To: pankaj@bass.bu.edu (Pankaj Tyagi)
Followup-To: soc.culture.indian
Organization: Boston University

In article <By6q98.Lur@cs.psu.edu> narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram
T Narayana) writes in reponse to article
<1992Nov23.183140.5195@news2.cis.umn.edu> by prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu
(Satya Prabhakar) :  

>>TRICKLE-DOWN: Let us thank the conservatives!
>>
>> 
   (stuff deleted....)
>>
>>Trickle-down.  Sure if makes the rich richer, but it will give jobs to the 
>>poor.  But the way to see it is that it is the payoff to the enterprising 
>>for risking their wealth and creating prosperity.
>
>No! it will not give jobs! It will give the mirage of jobs. It makes the
>rich really rich; this is no mirage. It is pretty concrete.
>

I never could understand the concept of Rich getting richer and that in
itself somehow being unfair/inhuman thing in so much as to deserve our
condemnation. As long as the rich person has not *forced* the poor to
part with the money by unfair means I don't see how this can be
immoral let alone illegal(which it is not). Furthermore a rich person
will reinvest that money back into economy and thus giving back to the
persons he/she got the money in the first place. There is no mirage in
that. 
	The alternative you are suggesting, will definitely *not* make
anybody rich. Unless of course you go about 'reinvesting in
infrastructure' which will surely make special-interest groups rich
:-)

	I am afraid that this may start sounding like conservative
rehetoric so I'd really like KT or someone else please explain to me
how Trickle-down just creates a mirage of jobs and not the jobs
themself. Incidental reasoning will do fine if there are no extraneous
factors destorting the results.

>>
>>Trickle-down. Yo, it does your country good!
>>

Well, as for above statement, it may be true if qualified by another
statement 
	'provided your trade barriers are high enough'

	In America there has been steady outflow of capital to
countries with cheaper. Not only the big corporation have moved out
but also the banks have been more free to finance projects in
latin-america and se-asia. Trickle down did trickle, and may be it went
ahead and benefitted the most needy people, namely the people of
latin-america and se-asia who have had the worst living standardsfor a
long time. May be trickle-down is just too fair as it will not
honour political boundries if they are surmountable. I know that this
does not neccessarily mean that working people, and hence the
politicians are going to be happy about it. 
	But then again if you want trickle down to work for your
country just raise your trade barrier.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include std.disclaimer| pankaj@bass.bu.edu,pankaj@pub2.bu.edu
#if IDONTLIKEYUORQUOTE |"..I mean if I said that I'm the king just because some
#include local.joke    | watery tart lobbed me a scimitar, they'd put me away"
--
#include std.disclaimer| pankaj@bass.bu.edu,pankaj@pub2.bu.edu
#if IDONTLIKEYUORQUOTE |"..I mean if I said that I'm the king just because some
#include local.joke    | watery tart lobbed me a scimitar, they'd put me away"
----------------------- Quote from Monty Pythons "Quest of the Holy Grail------