Boner:

The Wikipedia article doesn't say that, or at least it didn't yesterday, when I looked at it before I made my first post (Wikipedia is trusty on things mathematical).

Hold the fuck up, you realize MPC is a keynesian idea right? Like you are conservative right? That means you flat out reject keynes. If I am wrong in thinking that and you do indeed accept keynesian economics why the fuck are you a conservative?

this is who conservatives like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_Law

funny his theories were disproved like 80 years ago, just like pretty much all regressive policies. why are conservative so regressive, that's the real question

Boner:

Conservatives don't reject everything Keynes said. Keyne's equations are an ultrasimplified model of a noncyclical macroeconomy that is not price driven. The model is understandable to everyone, with the caveat that the real world is more complicated.

The pdf cite you gave me about the precautionary motive is about wealth-based MPC, not consumption-based MPC. Meaning, the constant term in the consumption function.

So where is the declining MPC as a function of income statement in the Wikipedia article?

Here's a website that's purpose is to teach economics: http://welkerswikinomics.wetpaint.com/page/The+Income+Consumption+%2F+Income+Saving+Relationship

It's very simply outlined.

It says:
C=Consumption DI=Disposable Income
-Households increase their C as DI rises.
-Households spend a larger proportion, if their DI is small.

If you add money to a household with high DI, the increase in C will be negligible. Conversely if you take money from a high DI household the fall in C will be negligible. However if you add money to a low DI household the increase in C will be substantial.

That's what we're getting at. Do you dispute this claim?

For wikipedia:
Mathematically, the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) function is expressed as the derivative of the consumption (C) function with respect to disposable income (Y).

So by definition if you give the collective rich of the country 10,000,000 dollars in tax breaks they will use less of it than if you gave a lot more/poorer people those 10,000,000.

gg

Fuck man I am sorry, I don't mean to be such a cock but your complete disregard for logic brings out the worst in me.

Boner:

That same article also has this:

The vertical distance between the 45 degree line and Consumption line measures either savings (when C line is below the 45 degree line) or dissavings (when C line is above the 45 degree line).
-Dissaving occurs when household consume more than its DI, indicating that the household borrowed money or spent accumulated wealth.
-Dissaving usually occur with households of lower income.

"Proportion" in the part of the article you cited is average propensity to consume.

The definition of MPC as a derivative gives no information about whether that derivative is constant, so it does not imply, by definition, that the rich have a lower MPC.

So if you agree that lower income households are generally more likely to be in debt then you agree that they will have a greater marginal propensity to spend too right? I mean they have to pay their debts and living expenses right?

Also who has a greater MPC skrum, 10 million people in the bottom 20% each given one dollar or 1 billionaire given 10million dollars back in tax breaks?