• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The ignorance of the left on economics is astounding

300 something posts in this thread and I am curious if we are ever going to talk about actual economics.
 
Liberals/leftists/Democrats understand perfectly that mechanization has been the driver of productivity. The loss in earning power is too steep to be explained solely on mechanization. The stagnation of the minimum wage cannot be explained by mechanization. Wages have not kept up even with inflation.
Actually if you have a degree and a full time job yes you are not only keeping up with inflation but have passed it.
once again facts do not care about your feelings.

When the HR departments of highly profitable corporations have printouts ready for wage workers on how to apply for food stamps and housing assistance call it what it is government subsidy of corporate wealth.
which is way cheaper than them not having a job at all.
also it is not a corporate subsidy as the corporation is not receiving the money.

minimum wage is not mean to be lived on. minimum wage is the lowest pay for the lowest skill job.
it is meant for entry level workers to be able to start learning some job skills in the work force.
as those people gain more experience and increase their knowledge, training, and skills
they are supposed to move out of minimum wage jobs in to higher paying jobs.

millions of people around the work do this every day. if you are still working as a cashier at McDonald's 10-15-20 years later
and haven't move up that is your fault not the government not McDonald's or anything else.
 
Someone who brings 10 dollars of value to a company is not worth 15 dollars. It’s really a simple concept.

The purpose of a business is to make money. You don’t do that by paying your employees more then they bring in.

I can’t believe this needs to be explained to people.

It's pretty easy to understand. If you are paying someone more than they are generating, and you don't have an expectation that they will start generating more than they cost within the timeframe you require, then you will be better off just letting them go.

That really is a pretty simple concept. Do you disagree with that?
 
I am already aware. Also, citizens get to vote for representatives. Now you know.
non sequitur

That's cool. Not germane to the topic, but congratulations on knowing that bit of irrelevant trivia anyway.
you bought it up so facts state otherwise.

There is compelling evidence for their existence, if that is what you mean.
Not really but congrats on finally admitting you support dictatorship governemnt have a nice day you lose.

Do you think it is unfair for us to leverage our capital to negotiate higher starting wages for our members?
if you believe in free markets then yes. since you don't and believe in dictatorships then well there you have it.
you should probably go live in a dictatorship for a while and see how well your theory works.
try NK for 6 months. if you manage to stay alive come back and tell us how great it is.
 
Lets take the top and bottom of economics here in the US. The left and Biden want to tax the hell out of businesses making more than $400,000. If he would, they will raise the price of their product, and even the most poor will have to pay the higher price.

Then the low end. Biden and the left wingers want a $15 minimum wage for burger flippers so they can have a "living wage". What they dont understand is working in a burger joint IS NOT a life's work. It is for teenagers, and maybe old people to add to their income. If you force $15 wages on a burger joint, one of three things will happen. They will go out of business, they will fire people and go to kiosks, or burgers will cost $7.50.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I think the primary thing that liberal dont understand, or dont care about, is that 'the economy' does worse the more govt interferes. National economic policy should be be about constantly trying to manipulate the economy to reach a desired outcome. The purpose of taxes is to fund services, not control income equality, or create growth. The purpose of govt is to protect rights, which leaves people to be free to pursue happiness, whether thats through wealth, growth, or whatever else.

Obviously though, liberals, and to a lesser extent, conservatives (dems/reps) are just using the tax code and labor laws as a tool to maintain political power. They dont actually care about economics.
 
Reagan coined the term. Get a grip. It's supply side economics. "[Under supply side economics] wealth will trickle down" --- Ronald Reagan.

Trickle down theory, supply side, Reaganomics, are words for the same thing.

Get a grip on realityl

once again facts do not care about your feelings.


No where is trickle down economic actually taught in any book or any other economics class.

once again facts destroy leftist arguments.

Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically targets taxes on the upper end of the economic spectrum.[1][2]

This is called a strawman argument that leftist use on a consistent basis. No one has ever argued this.

The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:[3][4]

Your right it is a joke. leftist prove they have no concept of economics by arguing a strawman that they created.

Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[citation needed] Some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth.[5][6] Trickle-down economics has been widely criticized, particularly by left-wing, centre-left and moderate politicians and economists, but also some right-wing politicians.

thanks for proving my point. leftist for years ever since FDR has been referring to something that doesn't exist anywhere in the world of economics.
 
If those positions are not contributing more than $15/hr to the company, then they are unnecessary. Perhaps those companies will cut costs by letting go of those employees and simply leaving their burgers unflipped, their shelves unstocked, and let customers leave without checking out first.

Companies that cannot generate more than $15/hr/employee will not be able to survive in a country with a $15 min wage, and those companies will go under. Their assets will be liquidated to better-run companies, and the demand previously filled by those companies will lead to growth for their better-run competitors.



Leopold II made quite a bit of money off of his business model as well. Nevertheless, it is not a good fit for my country.



Not up to me alone, no. But it is up to me and my fellow shareholders of the United States.

Our organization has a charter that allows us to vote on people to represent our interests, and those representatives are empowered to set the minimum wage, as well as the taxes charged for the military protection, infrastructure and business opportunities that we provide. Many of us feel that companies that cannot generate more than $15/hr/employee do not meet our quality standards, and have no place within our organization.
So in your world companies should just pay people what ever you feel is a fair wage no matter what they actually contribute to the earnings of that company.

And sorry but you don’t get to decide what is a good fit and what isn’t.

And seeing you try and pretend that some of our most successful businesses are poorly run shows just how desperately you are grasping at straws.

That’s good for your organization. When you run your own company you are free to run it however you want. And thankfully others don’t have to listen to you on how they run their company.
 
Last edited:
once again facts do not care about your feelings.


No where is trickle down economic actually taught in any book or any other economics class.

once again facts destroy leftist arguments.



This is called a strawman argument that leftist use on a consistent basis. No one has ever argued this.



Your right it is a joke. leftist prove they have no concept of economics by arguing a strawman that they created.



thanks for proving my point. leftist for years ever since FDR has been referring to something that doesn't exist anywhere in the world of economics.

Oh Republicans always say tax cuts create growth. Not true!

Tax cuts only make the rich richer

86_marginalgrowth.jpg.CROP.original-original (1).jpg
 
Labor in general never gets paid a fair share of the profit they make for the corporation. It's gotten worse in the last 40 years. Our pay and rewards systems are completely out of whack and completely unfair to the worker.
Just because you don’t think it’s fair doesn’t make it so.
 
It's pretty easy to understand. If you are paying someone more than they are generating, and you don't have an expectation that they will start generating more than they cost within the timeframe you require, then you will be better off just letting them go.

That really is a pretty simple concept. Do you disagree with that?
No the proper thing to do is to pay them what the job they are doing is worth.

But you are right it is a simple concept. That’s why I don’t understand why you are struggling with it so much.
 
non sequitur

You seemed confused about how the military, and the infrastructure and the business opportunities in the US work. They are paid for through taxes. Taxes are the fee charged in exchange for said military, infrastructure and business opportunities. The amount of those taxes is determined by the representatives elected by the citizens. Other terms and conditions, such as the minimum wage, are also set by those representatives. The citizens who elect those representatives can use their vote to elect representatives that will leverage their position to adjust those terms and conditions according to their interests.

you bought it up so facts state otherwise.

I didn't bring up whether or not pay increases in the military are dependent on skill and knowledge. Nor do I see any particular relevance. If their pay IS dependent on skill and knowledge, then we shareholders of America can leverage our capital to negotiate favorable terms of employment for our members. If their pay IS NOT dependent on skill and knowledge, well... then we shareholders of America can STILL leverage our capital to negotiate favorable terms of employment for our members.

Since my point is not dependent on (or even related to) whether or not pay increases in the military are dependent on skill and knowledge, that bit of trivia is not germane.

Not really but congrats on finally admitting you support dictatorship governemnt have a nice day you lose.

So you are saying that you believe that 'dictatorship' is just a myth? Why so worried about it then? Are you also afraid of Santa and the Tooth Faerie?

if you believe in free markets then yes.

So if you believe in free markets, then that means you think it is unfair for someone to leverage their capital to negotiate for favorable terms of employment? So you don't think companies should be able to do that? What kind of regulations do you want to put on companies to stop them from leveraging their capital to negotiate for favorable terms of employment, since you claim this is unfair?

you should probably go live in a dictatorship for a while and see how well your theory works.
try NK for 6 months. if you manage to stay alive come back and tell us how great it is.

NK is a Democratic Republic. It says so right there in the name. ;) *



*That's sarcasm. I already know that folks misuse names all the time. I'm just poking fun at folks who like to conflate "Democratic Socialism" with actual Socialism.
 
Before the Reagan tax cuts the wealthy and business owners knew that over a certain amount of income they would pay taxes at a 70% rate. That gave them an incentive to put that money they would otherwise pay in taxes back into their company or employee wages.

After Reagan's tax cut those wealthy business owners realized they could keep it all and they did.

download.png

inequality-pimer-infocus_infocus.png10-21-10inc-f3.jpg
 
No the proper thing to do is to pay them what the job they are doing is worth.

But you are right it is a simple concept. That’s why I don’t understand why you are struggling with it so much.

I'm obviously not struggling with it, since I just described it to you.

I'll try to make it simple for you.

Suppose you are paying someone $10/hr. The labor that they do brings in $12/hr of revenue for your company. That means they are pulling their weight, plus an extra $2/hr, which means that having them on board is making money for your company.

If you couldn't pay them less than $15/hr, and they were only bringing in $12/hr, you would actually be losing $3/hr by having them remain in your company. Obviously that is not sustainable.

Do you understand?
 
I'm obviously not struggling with it, since I just described it to you.

I'll try to make it simple for you.

Suppose you are paying someone $10/hr. The labor that they do brings in $12/hr of revenue for your company. That means they are pulling their weight, plus an extra $2/hr, which means that having them on board is making money for your company.

If you couldn't pay them less than $15/hr, and they were only bringing in $12/hr, you would actually be losing $3/hr by having them remain in your company. Obviously that is not sustainable.

Do you understand?
But you described it incorrectly. Hence why it is clear you are struggling.

What you are doing is proving why a 15 min wage is a bad idea.

Pretending like a 15 min wage is something that has to happen and then basing your model of how to run a business off of that is just silly.
 
First of all I am not a republican. Haven’t voted for a single republican in almost a decade and a half.

And the reason that a CEO is able to do those things because they have the bargaining power to get that in their contract. They have that power based on the performance they have had with other companies and the potential they provide to a company. A great CEO can turn a company around or greatly expand their profits.

A great burger flipper or a average one has virtually zero difference in the overall profitability of a company.


But it is sad seeing your naked jealousy of those who have been more successful then you.
You should probably let you hate go and just work on improving your situation.

It's not jealousy at all. I'm simply pointing out the truth -- poor and middle class Republicans are total SUCKERS. They vote against their best economic interest every single election. They worship rich Republican feudal lords, like the little peasants that they are. Rich Republicans are the intellectual and moral superiors of poor and middle class Republicans. That is why poor and middle class Republicans support them, they simply have no choice in the matter.

After all, it's not like poor and middle class Republicans can actually think for themselves. Right?? That certainly can't be allowed to happen.

There are a few brilliant minds out there that are worth what they're paid. However, that is not true for the vast majority of CEOs.

CEO pay has increased at least 400% in the past 40 years. Our CEOs 400% better than they were in 1980? Bullshit.

In the way that you think about economics, you're obviously a Republican.
 
But you described it incorrectly. Hence why it is clear you are struggling.

The way I described it, which you say is incorrect is this: "If you are paying someone more than they are generating, and you don't have an expectation that they will start generating more than they cost within the timeframe you require, then you will be better off just letting them go."

So just to be clear, you are saying that you don't think an employer would be better off letting someone go if they had no expectation that that employee would ever generate more revenue than they were being paid? If that is your position, can you explain how an employer would benefit from hiring someone who cost more in wages than they actually generated for the company?

If you can't pay someone less than $15/hr because of the minimum wage, but their work only generates $12/hr for your company, how does it make any sense to keep them employed in your company?

Do you understand how if someone only generates $12/hr, you will lose money by keeping them on at $15/hr?

Does it make sense now why you can't expect employers to pay their employees more than those employees actually generate for their employer?
 
Last edited:
I don't care what other people make. It has no bearing on what i can do and what I can make.
why are you jealous of other peoples success?

YOu have no idea what I believe. you simply make shit up.
If a ceo is doing good for his company then yes i don't care if they are making good money.
If a CEo is doing good for their company it means i am doing well for myself. It means i am getting
raises and promotions etc all of which increases my income.

on the other hand if a CEo is doing bad then no i don't believe they should get these huge buy out clauses.
why? because they are failing. they should not be paid for their failure.

it is up to the board of directors to write that into the contract with the CEO.
so your projection arguments are just that projections. they are your issue and no one else's.
all you leftist are the same mindless drone with 0 capacity to think for yourselves.
which is why everyone of you repeat the same lousy talking points every time.

That's where you're wrong -- it DOES have a bearing on how much you make. That's why the middle class hasn't seen a raise in 40 years, why CEOs get a 400% raise.

Christ Almighty, you simply know nothing.

I don't care about your lame explanations about why CEOs make so much money. And it really has nothing to do with it this debate -- the inequitable distribution of wealth between the rich and poor is what we are really discussing, not your pitiful rationalizations for filthy rich corporate executives.

I know you feel obligated as a serf to defend the wealth of your rich Repug feudal masters. After all, they are your intellectual and moral superiors. But try to have a little more dignity going forward. The way you lick their butts is truly pitiful.

The pathetic bonuses the average worker gets you when a company is doing "well" is a joke. Corporations hire exactly the number of people they need and that's all. And if you complain about your salary and benefits, you're gone. There is absolutely no loyalty in the corporate world, you will be fired and replaced at a moment's notice.

Yes, the board of directors is an inbred, back-scratching club of rich guys. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours in the future. That's how it works. Everyone gets a piece of the pie, just like the Mafia. Kind of like the Trump family, but more competent.

You just don't get it, you simply don't read enough about these things. That's why I've already corrected you multiple times in this thread.
 
once again facts do not care about your feelings.


No where is trickle down economic actually taught in any book or any other economics class.

once again facts destroy leftist arguments.
The author of the article is a partisan parroting your opinion. We're talking about 'supply side economics'.
You have presented no facts.
This is called a strawman argument that leftist use on a consistent basis. No one has ever argued this.
The quote is David Stockman's, a republican. a reagan cabinet director ( I believe he was Interior Sec)
The argument is about supply side economics, which is a theory proffered by Milton Friedman and the neoliberal/neoclassical schools. It is not relied on much by economists because most economists uphold it as bunk economics.
Your right it is a joke. leftist prove they have no concept of economics by arguing a strawman that they created.
Incompetent argument: generality.
thanks for proving my point. leftist for years ever since FDR has been referring to something that doesn't exist anywhere in the world of economics.

We get it, You don't like the term 'trickle down economics'., nor do right wingers, all of whose arguments you have presented, they are partisan so naturally they are not going to like the term. I admit it is a pejorative, but it is a deserved pejorative, as supply side economics is bunk..

Allow me to educate you on the historical record of this term, how it came to be.

Reagan said 'wealth will trickle down' and the left seized on that, given the ridiculousness of the premise, and relabeled reaganomics, which is supply side economics offered by Milton Friedman and the chicago school. I Believe the Austrian schools concur, not sure.

But we're talking about supply side economics, which is a doctrine that has been disproven. You're just getting hung up on the pejorative term for the same thing. Get your head out of the sand.

Of course it's not being taught, it has been debunked.


Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman agreed the tax cuts would reduce tax revenues and result in intolerable deficits, though he supported them as a means to restrain federal spending.[105] Friedman characterized the reduced government tax revenue as "cutting their allowance"


The annotation refers to this article by Milton Friedman,espousing the tenet of 'supply side economics'

All we are talking about is supply side economics. "Trickle Down" is the pejorative termed coined by media for the SAME THING.

Milton, like all neoliberals, got it wrong, but at least he acknowledged they would expand deficits.

It is you who are arguing a strawman. See, you're hung up the term 'trickle down', which, of course, is not the academic term.
The academic term is 'supply side economics' which most economists agree is bunk, which is probably why it is not being taught, other than an asterisk in the annals of ideas that failed in the past.

The heart of the doctrine posits that tax cuts for the rich will benefit everyone down the economic ladder.

That's all are talking about here, that particular doctrine, and all you are doing is getting hung up on the term, because you don't like it as it is a pejorative coinage for the above theory, which is bullshit.

Reagan said "a rising tide lifts all boats'.


This premise has been debunked. Not everyone has a frickin' boat.
 
Last edited:
300 something posts in this thread and I am curious if we are ever going to talk about actual economics.
You have to remember that you are talking to someone that believes Trickle Down Economics actually work, so.....
 
You have to remember that you are talking to someone that believes Trickle Down Economics actually work, so.....
So you believe in trickle up poverty?
 
That's where you're wrong -- it DOES have a bearing on how much you make. That's why the middle class hasn't seen a raise in 40 years, why CEOs get a 400% raise.
If you haven't gotten a raise in 40 years then you are doing something wrong. I know in the past 20 years i have gotten plenty of raises and i have nearly doubled to triple my
salary in just 20 years. So your inability to earn more money is your issue and no one else's.

Christ Almighty, you simply know nothing.

Your projection fallacy is your issue no mine.

I don't care about your lame explanations about why CEOs make so much money. And it really has nothing to do with it this debate -- the inequitable distribution of wealth between the rich and poor is what we are really discussing, not your pitiful rationalizations for filthy rich corporate executives.

Of course you don't care about facts you never have which is why the OP is correct.

I know you feel obligated as a serf to defend the wealth of your rich Repug feudal masters. After all, they are your intellectual and moral superiors. But try to have a little more dignity going forward. The way you lick their butts is truly pitiful.

Your projection fallacies are your issue and no one else's.

The pathetic bonuses the average worker gets you when a company is doing "well" is a joke. Corporations hire exactly the number of people they need and that's all. And if you complain about your salary and benefits, you're gone. There is absolutely no loyalty in the corporate world, you will be fired and replaced at a moment's notice.

Then you work for some pretty terrible places but since you said you haven't had a pay increase in 40 years that could be why as well.

Yes, the board of directors is an inbred, back-scratching club of rich guys. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours in the future. That's how it works. Everyone gets a piece of the pie, just like the Mafia. Kind of like the Trump family, but more competent.

you are showing you know nothing again.

You just don't get it, you simply don't read enough about these things. That's why I've already corrected you multiple times in this thread.
No i don't read whatever nonsense you do. I read facts and information on how things work.
you read conspiracy theories. you haven't correct anything or anyone. yet another projection fallacy that is your issue.
 
The author of the article is a partisan parroting your opinion. We're talking about 'supply side economics'.
You have presented no facts.

No the author is presenting facts. I already told you what supply side economics is. Supply side economics is not trickle down economics.
this is why the OP is correct. Leftist have no clue what they are talking about.

The quote is David Stockman's, a republican. a reagan cabinet director ( I believe he was Interior Sec)
The argument is about supply side economics, which is a theory proffered by Milton Friedman and the neoliberal/neoclassical schools. It is not relied on much by economists because most economists uphold it as bunk economics.

Then that is David Stockman's wrong opinion. There is no such thing has trickle down economics taught in any major economic school. I gave you at least 5 articles that all say you are wrong.
Yet it isn't bunk economics and gave us the massive economic boom from the early 80's-2000. i would say 20 years is a pretty good proven format.
the only time it really stalled is when clinton over raised taxes and admitted it and had to roll his tax hikes back.

Incompetent argument: generality.

Your projection fallacies are your issue and no one else's.

We get it, You don't like the term 'trickle down economics'., nor do right wingers, all of whose arguments you have presented, they are partisan so naturally they are not going to like the term. I admit it is a pejorative, but it is a deserved pejorative, as supply side economics is bunk..

YOu keep repeating it but well facts do not care about your feelings.

I honeslty don't give a shit what wiki said. YOu can't even use wiki as a source in a college term paper so why do you think it has any credibility here?
The fact is that supply side economics is a real thing. it works and works well. By lowering taxes and restrictions on the ability for people to open businesses
and open doors so people are able to create new businesses and enter the market more effectively you produce more wealth and prosperity for everyone.

That is exactly the stance that reagan took and that clinton was forced to admit worked. Obama stalled the economy with his heavy handed regulations that caused
trillions of dollars in costs to private businesses. you want t know why businesses didn't invest in the obama economy and they were holding onto over 3 trillion dollars of liquid capital?
because there was little benefit to invest into it. The costs of investing were too high.

You want to know why they opened up their pocket books under trump? because trump undid most of obama's heavy handed regulations that was stopping all sorts of businesses from opening
and expanding.

Your problem is you don't understand supply side economics so you can't really argue something you don't understand.
Your strawman argument is that supply side economics is only for the rich it isn't. that is why you lose this argument.
 
No the author is presenting facts. I already told you what supply side economics is. Supply side economics is not trickle down economics.

HIstorical events which are factual, I didn't look this shit up, I remember it.

1. Reagan said, 'Wealth will trickle down'.

2. Reagan's policy was supply side economics.

3. Supply side economics became known as Reagononics.

Because of his 'Trickle Down' remark, the media seized on that can started calling Reagonomics, i.e., supply side economis,
as 'trickle down' economics.

It's all the same thing. Get over it.

Your sources are bunk. Supply side economics, the idea that not taxing the rich improves the lives of those down the economic ladder,
has proven as bullshit.

HW Bush called id 'voo doo economics'.

Remember? Are you old enough to remember?

Wikipedia is annotated, based on sourced writings.

Get over it.

Deal with it

I really don't give a **** what you think, but you can't change the truth

Conservatism is horseshit, and will go down in history as a failed political system.

there are more of us than there are of you.

Deal with it.
 
No the author is presenting facts. I already told you what supply side economics is. Supply side economics is not trickle down economics.
this is why the OP is correct. Leftist have no clue what they are talking about.



Then that is David Stockman's wrong opinion. There is no such thing has trickle down economics taught in any major economic school. I gave you at least 5 articles that all say you are wrong.
Yet it isn't bunk economics and gave us the massive economic boom from the early 80's-2000. i would say 20 years is a pretty good proven format.
the only time it really stalled is when clinton over raised taxes and admitted it and had to roll his tax hikes back.



Your projection fallacies are your issue and no one else's.



YOu keep repeating it but well facts do not care about your feelings.

I honeslty don't give a shit what wiki said. YOu can't even use wiki as a source in a college term paper so why do you think it has any credibility here?
The fact is that supply side economics is a real thing. it works and works well. By lowering taxes and restrictions on the ability for people to open businesses
and open doors so people are able to create new businesses and enter the market more effectively you produce more wealth and prosperity for everyone.

That is exactly the stance that reagan took and that clinton was forced to admit worked. Obama stalled the economy with his heavy handed regulations that caused
trillions of dollars in costs to private businesses. you want t know why businesses didn't invest in the obama economy and they were holding onto over 3 trillion dollars of liquid capital?
because there was little benefit to invest into it. The costs of investing were too high.

You want to know why they opened up their pocket books under trump? because trump undid most of obama's heavy handed regulations that was stopping all sorts of businesses from opening
and expanding.

Your problem is you don't understand supply side economics so you can't really argue something you don't understand.
Your strawman argument is that supply side economics is only for the rich it isn't. that is why you lose this argument.

You are either one of the 10% who have benefit greatly from trickle down

Or you are one of those white working class guys brainwashed by right wing propaganda

Hard to deny who has benefited from Reagan's tax cuts and what the cost of those tax cuts have been to America.

10-21-10inc-f3.jpg

history.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom