7 ms·

It was sold to the middle class as "Trickle down economics". Basically, if you make the rich richer, your pie gets bigger too. Sadly, people bought that line.

csa 8y ago
I’m not sure why you are getting downvotes, but that was precisely the line that was used. The economics and finance professors I took classes with had a good laugh at that idea.
- digitalmaster 8y ago
  Yea also not sure why this is being downvoted. That was exactly the narrative at the time.
conanbatt 8y ago
Trickle down economics is a pejorative term from the 30's. As a proposition it is as naive as trickle-up, which is what the other spectrum usually sells. ('if you give poor people more resources, its good for everyone') Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither.
- djrobstep 8y ago
  > Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither. I will never understand how adults can believe that things like economics, journalism, central banking, and (especially) the US constitution can be non-political.
  - RobertoG 8y ago
    Because that idea (about economics) has been heavily, and successfully, pushed by interested parties: 'The economy' and 'the market' are sacred things that are disconnected from the dirty world, and work perfectly in their own if you don't bother them. No need for 'political economy' anymore, only 'economics'.
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      Gotta answer that last sentence. Free market advocates are the exact opposite of disconnected with the dirty world: they advocate for allowing the dirtyness of reality sort itself out, without a neat central order. The most significant advocate for free markets, Milton Friedman, literally wrote the book on the application of Positive Economics: seeing things how they really are, use empiric data, make falsifiable predictions, etc. Free markets are pro-reality, pro-dirty world.
      - RobertoG 8y ago
        Well, if you start with the idea that markets exist in the void, you are certainly avoiding the dirty world. For instance: assuming that property rights exist outside a political framework or power structures.
        conanbatt 8y ago
        They don't exist in "the void". Property rights are fundamental to the free market ideology, as well as courts, police and military. It's the foundations of liberalism, with Locke, Adam Smith, etc. I reiterate that free market ideology is positive, while government intervention ideology is more normative: it says how things should be and tries to make it so. The best case of this has been obviously Communism and Fascism: they said this is best, and organized top to bottom how things should be, and ignored any evidence of the contrary.
        djrobstep 8y ago
        What is it that motivates you to be a booklicker for the rich?
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    I am surprised on people that believe politics shape reality, as if a political will could bend laws of nature.
    - djrobstep 8y ago
      If you think economics is about "laws of nature", then you have a lot to learn about economics.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  >>'if you give poor people more resources, its good for everyone') It's not 'poor people' vs. 'rich people' but the majority vs. a minority. >>"Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither." Economics? what do you mean? There are theories that, in a less simplistic way, come to propose one and the other.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    > It's not 'poor people' vs. 'rich people' but the majority vs. a minority. As silly a proposition as any other. > Economics? what do you mean? There are theories that, in a less simplistic way, come to propose one and the other. Mostly politicians and pundits. Economics, neither the mathematically inclined microeconomics nor the formulaic and macroeconomics have such thought or principles behind them.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  >>As a proposition it is as naive as trickle-up, which is what the other spectrum usually sells. ('if you give poor people more resources, its good for everyone') Incorrect. It has been well-documented that when people have more disposable income, their spending increases. This increase in economic activity grows the economy.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > Incorrect. It has been well-documented that when people have more disposable income, their spending increases. This increase in economic activity grows the economy. It has been well documented that when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society. Everyone's got a narrative, and they're both right. To an extent.
    - enraged_camel 8y ago
      >>when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society. You are making some wild assumptions that require evidence. Specifically, you need to prove that the reason rich people are rich is because they "have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital", as opposed to (or at least independent of) other factors, such as luck, inheritance, etc. You also need to prove that the way the rich allocate resources, even when "efficient" (i.e. provides the most return) is actually good for society as a whole, and not just the rich.
      - darawk 8y ago
        > You are making some wild assumptions that require evidence. Specifically, you need to prove that the reason rich people are rich is because they "have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital", as opposed to (or at least independent of) other factors, such as luck, inheritance, etc. I'm not making any assumptions. In aggregate, by definition, wealthy people are better at allocating capital than non-wealthy people. Yes, not all wealthy people are good at it. But in general, they are. That's why they're wealthy. The fact that exceptions exist is irrelevant to my point. > You also need to prove that the way the rich allocate resources, even when "efficient" (i.e. provides the most return) is actually good for society as a whole, and not just the rich. Do you have evidence that the way the poor allocate additional capital is more socially useful?
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It was sold to the middle class as "Trickle down economics". No, it was sold as “supply-side economics”, “Trickle-down economics” was a hostile characterization (as was Geore H. W. Bush’s “Voodoo economics” characterization.)

csa 8y ago

I’m not sure why you are getting downvotes, but that was precisely the line that was used. The economics and finance professors I took classes with had a good laugh at that idea.

digitalmaster 8y ago
Yea also not sure why this is being downvoted. That was exactly the narrative at the time.

conanbatt 8y ago

Trickle down economics is a pejorative term from the 30's. As a proposition it is as naive as trickle-up, which is what the other spectrum usually sells. ('if you give poor people more resources, its good for everyone') Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither.

djrobstep 8y ago
> Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither. I will never understand how adults can believe that things like economics, journalism, central banking, and (especially) the US constitution can be non-political.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  Because that idea (about economics) has been heavily, and successfully, pushed by interested parties: 'The economy' and 'the market' are sacred things that are disconnected from the dirty world, and work perfectly in their own if you don't bother them. No need for 'political economy' anymore, only 'economics'.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    Gotta answer that last sentence. Free market advocates are the exact opposite of disconnected with the dirty world: they advocate for allowing the dirtyness of reality sort itself out, without a neat central order. The most significant advocate for free markets, Milton Friedman, literally wrote the book on the application of Positive Economics: seeing things how they really are, use empiric data, make falsifiable predictions, etc. Free markets are pro-reality, pro-dirty world.
    - RobertoG 8y ago
      Well, if you start with the idea that markets exist in the void, you are certainly avoiding the dirty world. For instance: assuming that property rights exist outside a political framework or power structures.
      - conanbatt 8y ago
        They don't exist in "the void". Property rights are fundamental to the free market ideology, as well as courts, police and military. It's the foundations of liberalism, with Locke, Adam Smith, etc. I reiterate that free market ideology is positive, while government intervention ideology is more normative: it says how things should be and tries to make it so. The best case of this has been obviously Communism and Fascism: they said this is best, and organized top to bottom how things should be, and ignored any evidence of the contrary.
        djrobstep 8y ago
        What is it that motivates you to be a booklicker for the rich?
- conanbatt 8y ago
  I am surprised on people that believe politics shape reality, as if a political will could bend laws of nature.
  - djrobstep 8y ago
    If you think economics is about "laws of nature", then you have a lot to learn about economics.
RobertoG 8y ago
>>'if you give poor people more resources, its good for everyone') It's not 'poor people' vs. 'rich people' but the majority vs. a minority. >>"Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither." Economics? what do you mean? There are theories that, in a less simplistic way, come to propose one and the other.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > It's not 'poor people' vs. 'rich people' but the majority vs. a minority. As silly a proposition as any other. > Economics? what do you mean? There are theories that, in a less simplistic way, come to propose one and the other. Mostly politicians and pundits. Economics, neither the mathematically inclined microeconomics nor the formulaic and macroeconomics have such thought or principles behind them.
enraged_camel 8y ago
>>As a proposition it is as naive as trickle-up, which is what the other spectrum usually sells. ('if you give poor people more resources, its good for everyone') Incorrect. It has been well-documented that when people have more disposable income, their spending increases. This increase in economic activity grows the economy.
- darawk 8y ago
  > Incorrect. It has been well-documented that when people have more disposable income, their spending increases. This increase in economic activity grows the economy. It has been well documented that when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society. Everyone's got a narrative, and they're both right. To an extent.
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    >>when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society. You are making some wild assumptions that require evidence. Specifically, you need to prove that the reason rich people are rich is because they "have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital", as opposed to (or at least independent of) other factors, such as luck, inheritance, etc. You also need to prove that the way the rich allocate resources, even when "efficient" (i.e. provides the most return) is actually good for society as a whole, and not just the rich.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > You are making some wild assumptions that require evidence. Specifically, you need to prove that the reason rich people are rich is because they "have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital", as opposed to (or at least independent of) other factors, such as luck, inheritance, etc. I'm not making any assumptions. In aggregate, by definition, wealthy people are better at allocating capital than non-wealthy people. Yes, not all wealthy people are good at it. But in general, they are. That's why they're wealthy. The fact that exceptions exist is irrelevant to my point. > You also need to prove that the way the rich allocate resources, even when "efficient" (i.e. provides the most return) is actually good for society as a whole, and not just the rich. Do you have evidence that the way the poor allocate additional capital is more socially useful?

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It was sold to the middle class as "Trickle down economics". No, it was sold as “supply-side economics”, “Trickle-down economics” was a hostile characterization (as was Geore H. W. Bush’s “Voodoo economics” characterization.)