3 ms·

Its astounding how quickly people can forget the mistakes of the past, or pretend that they didn't happen. The foundation of a thriving civilization is learning

by pm90 7y ago

Its astounding how quickly people can forget the mistakes of the past, or pretend that they didn't happen. The foundation of a thriving civilization is learning from past mistakes and taking action to avoid the same mistake. The bad faith arguments for trickle down economics and the myth of tax cuts automatically generating enough economic growth are just that: myths, that have been debunked. This is what makes me especially excited for the possibility of a Warren/Sanders Administration. Republicans will run the economy to the ground; we need a player in the economy that is concerned not just with short term profit maximization but long term investments in society.

mu_killnine 7y ago
trickle down economics and the myth of tax cuts automatically generating enough economic growth are just that: myths, that have been debunked. I'm just heading out the door, so I apologize for this being a very lazy reply. But does anyone have any semi-academic reading (I'm not an economist..., but I don't want pundit talk) that thoroughly debunks these points?
- mpweiher 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Critici...
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  “tax cuts automatically generating enough economic growth” This one is easy to debunk. Deficits have gone up with every tax cut since Reagan and they never came down much. Trickle down also doesn’t seem to work with upper incomes rising while lower incomes are stagnating.
  - caseysoftware 7y ago
    But you're one step removed. Deficits are income minus expenditures. If expenditures are increasing faster than income (regardless of how fast income is growing), then there will always be deficits. A better measure would be to look at income (aka tax revenues) which usually come from productive economic activity. Your analysis is closer "eating vegetables makes you fat!" while ignoring that you're eating three desserts after each meal.
- stevenwoo 7y ago
  Not replying but questioning your question - why isn't the results of multiple attempts at tax cuts at state (Kansas) and federal level(Reagan/Bush/Trump in USA) enough evidence, would someone in favor of such tax cuts be coming at the facts with something like "No true Scotsman"? All of the top matches for stories about tax cut results end up on progressive or non libertarian sites. The architect (maybe the author for the textbook on Reaganomics) for trickle down tax cuts wrote an editorial which is not academic but still: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/27/tax-cut-fever-republican-supply-side-theory-hogwash-bruce-bartlett-column/704464001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/27/tax-cut-fe...
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    Because every major tax cut, except George W Bush's lead to an economic boom that people felt. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Trump all pushed through major tax cuts. Each time it was followed by economic growth (except W). Now most economists (including a recently published and definitive 65 year study of tax cuts) will tell you that those tax cuts did NOT cause the economic growth. This is a case of academics fighting what people saw with their eyes and felt with their pocket books, so this argument will never die no matter how many papers are published "debunking" it. I have a hard time believing the economists myself having lived through all but Kennedy's tax cut, but it may be so. Also, the person above was not talking about trickle-down, which is easier to debunk. I would definitely agree it is pretty clear that in most all cases the rich get richer when taxes are substantially lowered and very little trickles down. Trickle down is easier to "disprove" than a connection between tax cuts and growth. Kennedy's tax cut and resultant economic growth appeared to help the middle class more than the others, but that was before we went off the gold standard and productivity and wages rose together. And yes what happened in Kansas is sad. You can have very low taxes, but without something to attract talented people and businesses to your state, they don't do much good. No one is going to relocate to the middle of nowhere just to enjoy a modest tax benefit, and if you are a corporation you will likely just incorporate in Delaware anyway so why bother with Kansas?
    - jrs235 7y ago
      Tax cuts are like drugs. Immediately after taking a hit things look and feel good but they won't last. Either you stop before they kill you and you get a hang over or you just keep upping your dose until it kills you. Eventually the piper gets paid.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Trickle down economics was coined in a depression era joke by Will Rogers. You might want to start your reading with this very widely reported 2015 IMF report: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf First article about this report search brought up, in case you want a slightly lighter introduction is, though you should find dozens of other media articles on the report: https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed... Never encountered this site before so know nothing of their editorial stance, though I can conclude they are not pushing the boundaries of the laissez-faire right. :)
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
> Its astounding how quickly people can forget the mistakes of the past, or pretend that they didn't happen. > This is what makes me especially excited for the possibility of a Warrens/Sanders... My friend, I’d like to suggest some historical reading about the dangers of central planning, socialist/communist governments....
- mpweiher 7y ago
  Hmm...the 'socialism' of Warren/Sanders is the social democracy of such hellholes as <checks notes> most of Western Europe, including Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
- sykick 7y ago
  There is quite a bit of gap between Grover Norquist style economic policy and central planning. Neither Sanders or Warren are advocating for central planning. George H.W. Bush famously called trickle down economics “voodoo economics”. Prior to the great shift rightward with Reagan most Republicans did not advocate for trickle down and Reagan himself thought the tax on capital ought to be greater than the tax on labor.

by pm90 7y ago

mu_killnine 7y ago

trickle down economics and the myth of tax cuts automatically generating enough economic growth are just that: myths, that have been debunked. I'm just heading out the door, so I apologize for this being a very lazy reply. But does anyone have any semi-academic reading (I'm not an economist..., but I don't want pundit talk) that thoroughly debunks these points?

mpweiher 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Critici...
Ididntdothis 7y ago
“tax cuts automatically generating enough economic growth” This one is easy to debunk. Deficits have gone up with every tax cut since Reagan and they never came down much. Trickle down also doesn’t seem to work with upper incomes rising while lower incomes are stagnating.
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  But you're one step removed. Deficits are income minus expenditures. If expenditures are increasing faster than income (regardless of how fast income is growing), then there will always be deficits. A better measure would be to look at income (aka tax revenues) which usually come from productive economic activity. Your analysis is closer "eating vegetables makes you fat!" while ignoring that you're eating three desserts after each meal.
stevenwoo 7y ago
Not replying but questioning your question - why isn't the results of multiple attempts at tax cuts at state (Kansas) and federal level(Reagan/Bush/Trump in USA) enough evidence, would someone in favor of such tax cuts be coming at the facts with something like "No true Scotsman"? All of the top matches for stories about tax cut results end up on progressive or non libertarian sites. The architect (maybe the author for the textbook on Reaganomics) for trickle down tax cuts wrote an editorial which is not academic but still: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/27/tax-cut-fever-republican-supply-side-theory-hogwash-bruce-bartlett-column/704464001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/27/tax-cut-fe...
- rpiguy 7y ago
  Because every major tax cut, except George W Bush's lead to an economic boom that people felt. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Trump all pushed through major tax cuts. Each time it was followed by economic growth (except W). Now most economists (including a recently published and definitive 65 year study of tax cuts) will tell you that those tax cuts did NOT cause the economic growth. This is a case of academics fighting what people saw with their eyes and felt with their pocket books, so this argument will never die no matter how many papers are published "debunking" it. I have a hard time believing the economists myself having lived through all but Kennedy's tax cut, but it may be so. Also, the person above was not talking about trickle-down, which is easier to debunk. I would definitely agree it is pretty clear that in most all cases the rich get richer when taxes are substantially lowered and very little trickles down. Trickle down is easier to "disprove" than a connection between tax cuts and growth. Kennedy's tax cut and resultant economic growth appeared to help the middle class more than the others, but that was before we went off the gold standard and productivity and wages rose together. And yes what happened in Kansas is sad. You can have very low taxes, but without something to attract talented people and businesses to your state, they don't do much good. No one is going to relocate to the middle of nowhere just to enjoy a modest tax benefit, and if you are a corporation you will likely just incorporate in Delaware anyway so why bother with Kansas?
  - jrs235 7y ago
    Tax cuts are like drugs. Immediately after taking a hit things look and feel good but they won't last. Either you stop before they kill you and you get a hang over or you just keep upping your dose until it kills you. Eventually the piper gets paid.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Trickle down economics was coined in a depression era joke by Will Rogers. You might want to start your reading with this very widely reported 2015 IMF report: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf First article about this report search brought up, in case you want a slightly lighter introduction is, though you should find dozens of other media articles on the report: https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed... Never encountered this site before so know nothing of their editorial stance, though I can conclude they are not pushing the boundaries of the laissez-faire right. :)

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago

> Its astounding how quickly people can forget the mistakes of the past, or pretend that they didn't happen. > This is what makes me especially excited for the possibility of a Warrens/Sanders... My friend, I’d like to suggest some historical reading about the dangers of central planning, socialist/communist governments....

mpweiher 7y ago
Hmm...the 'socialism' of Warren/Sanders is the social democracy of such hellholes as <checks notes> most of Western Europe, including Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
sykick 7y ago
There is quite a bit of gap between Grover Norquist style economic policy and central planning. Neither Sanders or Warren are advocating for central planning. George H.W. Bush famously called trickle down economics “voodoo economics”. Prior to the great shift rightward with Reagan most Republicans did not advocate for trickle down and Reagan himself thought the tax on capital ought to be greater than the tax on labor.