4 ms·

Perhaps I'm having a Mandela Effect moment, but hasn't "trickle down" been debunked before this study...repeatedly? Not just "no shit", but actual studies and s

Perhaps I'm having a Mandela Effect moment, but hasn't "trickle down" been debunked before this study...repeatedly? Not just "no shit", but actual studies and stuff? Regardless, Will Rogers is credited with the phrase "trickle down" to refer to supply-side economics, so it has gone on longer than 50 years. Mr. Rogers also did not mean the turn of phrase to be complimentary.

Someone 6y ago
Indeed. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics) say he used it in 1932, and says the idea is even older (“leak through” in 1896; “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” in the 1890s)
- mikestew 6y ago
  “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” Boy, an accurate assessment of supply-side economics if there ever was one: "let the plebs pick through our shit to see if we left any excess for them".
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows Funny enough in that analogy: you're feeding the horse because you care about its well-being and it's doing something helpful in return, whereas the sparrows are actually a nuisance providing no value to anybody and just taking without giving anything in return.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    It's a good analogy. The rich don't care about the sparrows.
  - tsdlts 6y ago
    As Mao Zedong learned late in his life, sparrows do actually provide value.
pmiller2 6y ago
It has, but half the country still hasn't gotten that message.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > It has, but half the country still hasn't gotten that message. That's at least partially because the wealthy have the means to hire lots of smart people to create sophisticatedly misleading propaganda for them, and make sure it's widely disseminated and influential.
  - Florin_Andrei 6y ago
    Social media may turn out to be part of the explanation for the Great Filter.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      When I see social media I remember the Krell Big Machine in Forbidden Planet. We built something that brings out our worst demons.
imtringued 6y ago
It's just an excuse to justify selfish tax policy that favors the wealthy. It obviously doesn't work because the wealthy don't have to invest into domestic jobs. They can also use their money abroad. If you give them more money they are just going to spend more of it outside your country. The opposite is also true. The vast majority of consumers spend their money domestically. Yes the products they buy are often imports but in many cases a big chunk of the money goes to cashiers, delivery drivers and so on. Of course I am simplifying this a bit. In theory the roles can switch and business owners spend more domestically and consumers spend more abroad but as it is right now the rich just invest into Chinese businesses or production capacity in China. Think of companies like Tesla building factories in China.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "It obviously doesn't work because the wealthy don't have to invest into domestic jobs. They can also use their money abroad." They can also just hoard most of it and pass it on to their descendants -- this is how you get dynasties. Tax havens and creatively constructed foundations are another way of making sure the government never gets ahold of their money.
  - 0x6862 6y ago
    Sure the rich hold some gold & BTC but most of their wealth is in investments (stocks, bonds, infrastructure etc.) to generate positive real returns - given inflation. This is far from hoarding
    - jacques_chester 6y ago
      What the paper shows is that the increment in potential investments by the wealthiest don't seem to improve growth, but does worsen inequality. The individually wealthy are not required for the aggregation and allocation of capital. Governments and financial systems are typically more capable at achieving this requirement in a welfare-maximising manner.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
Florin_Andrei 6y ago
> hasn't "trickle down" been debunked before this study...repeatedly? Not just "no shit", but actual studies and stuff? Regardless, it's still the central dogma of the politics of a large part of population.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  We desperately need to educate these people because they'll continue to vote against theirs and our interests.
throw0101a 6y ago
> Perhaps I'm having a Mandela Effect moment, but hasn't "trickle down" been debunked before this study...repeatedly? The idea has been around in some form or another for a long time: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#History_and_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#History... The most recent reincarnation was known to be not very good economics from the get-go: > What I want to talk about is when, exactly, the GOP went over the edge. Obviously it didn’t happen all at once. But I think the real watershed came in 1980-81, when supply-side economics became the party’s official doctrine. > I’m not sure, even now, whether people who aren’t involved in economic policy discussion understand that supply-side wasn’t a doctrine like monetarism or even real business cycles — ideas I may think are wrong, but which had and to some extent still have significant support from professionals in the field. Supply-side economics never had any evidence behind it; it never had any support in academic research; it barely even had any support among economic researchers and forecasters in the business world. It was and remains crank economics pure and simple, with nothing going for it except political convenience. > Yet 35 years ago the GOP was already willing to embrace this doctrine because it was politically convenient, and could be used to justify tax cuts for the rich, which have always been the priority. > And given this, why should anyone be surprised at all the reality denial and trashing of any kind of evidence that followed? You say economics is a pseudo-science? Fine. First they came for the economists; then they came for the climate scientists and the evolutionary biologists. * https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/the-gops-original-sin/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/the-gops-origin... He has an entire section on this in this recent book Arguing with Zombies, along with how the GOP are worried about deficits and debts when they're out of office, but then don't once they're in power (e.g., tax cuts in the December 2017 budget): * https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324005018 https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324005018 * https://www.worldcat.org/title/arguing-with-zombies-economics-politics-and-the-fight-for-a-better-america/oclc/1134536617 https://www.worldcat.org/title/arguing-with-zombies-economic...
Diederich 6y ago
George Bush, Sr., characterized Reagan's economic paradigm (Reagonomics/supply side/trickle down/etc) as "Voodoo economics": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/270292.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/270292.stm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hnM6xNjeU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hnM6xNjeU
partiallypro 6y ago
"Trickle down" is an economic slur, it's not something economists believe. It's just what some people call a certain policy set.
- jariel 6y ago
  The term they use is 'supply side' economics - meaning, you support businesses with tax cuts, subsidies, Quantitative Easing, then the 'core' economic mechanisms are healthy, people get hired (i.e. trickle down). As oppose to 'demand side' i.e. give tax cuts or money to the poor - they spend it, the economy grows.
  - 0x6862 6y ago
    You forgot the big one - regulation. Supply side is about making it easier for people to produce. You won’t find many free market types supporting QE and subsidies. Would you rather live in a world where there’s only 1 large firm because over regulation has created a high barrier to entry and little incentive to risk starting a competitor, or a world with many firms where it’s easy for people to compete and they’re incentivised to do so?

Someone 6y ago

Indeed. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics) say he used it in 1932, and says the idea is even older (“leak through” in 1896; “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” in the 1890s)

mikestew 6y ago
“If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” Boy, an accurate assessment of supply-side economics if there ever was one: "let the plebs pick through our shit to see if we left any excess for them".
commandlinefan 6y ago
> If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows Funny enough in that analogy: you're feeding the horse because you care about its well-being and it's doing something helpful in return, whereas the sparrows are actually a nuisance providing no value to anybody and just taking without giving anything in return.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  It's a good analogy. The rich don't care about the sparrows.
- tsdlts 6y ago
  As Mao Zedong learned late in his life, sparrows do actually provide value.

pmiller2 6y ago

It has, but half the country still hasn't gotten that message.

ardy42 6y ago
> It has, but half the country still hasn't gotten that message. That's at least partially because the wealthy have the means to hire lots of smart people to create sophisticatedly misleading propaganda for them, and make sure it's widely disseminated and influential.
- Florin_Andrei 6y ago
  Social media may turn out to be part of the explanation for the Great Filter.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    When I see social media I remember the Krell Big Machine in Forbidden Planet. We built something that brings out our worst demons.

imtringued 6y ago

It's just an excuse to justify selfish tax policy that favors the wealthy. It obviously doesn't work because the wealthy don't have to invest into domestic jobs. They can also use their money abroad. If you give them more money they are just going to spend more of it outside your country. The opposite is also true. The vast majority of consumers spend their money domestically. Yes the products they buy are often imports but in many cases a big chunk of the money goes to cashiers, delivery drivers and so on. Of course I am simplifying this a bit. In theory the roles can switch and business owners spend more domestically and consumers spend more abroad but as it is right now the rich just invest into Chinese businesses or production capacity in China. Think of companies like Tesla building factories in China.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"It obviously doesn't work because the wealthy don't have to invest into domestic jobs. They can also use their money abroad." They can also just hoard most of it and pass it on to their descendants -- this is how you get dynasties. Tax havens and creatively constructed foundations are another way of making sure the government never gets ahold of their money.
- 0x6862 6y ago
  Sure the rich hold some gold & BTC but most of their wealth is in investments (stocks, bonds, infrastructure etc.) to generate positive real returns - given inflation. This is far from hoarding
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    What the paper shows is that the increment in potential investments by the wealthiest don't seem to improve growth, but does worsen inequality. The individually wealthy are not required for the aggregation and allocation of capital. Governments and financial systems are typically more capable at achieving this requirement in a welfare-maximising manner.
throwaway894345 6y ago

Florin_Andrei 6y ago

> hasn't "trickle down" been debunked before this study...repeatedly? Not just "no shit", but actual studies and stuff? Regardless, it's still the central dogma of the politics of a large part of population.

rbanffy 6y ago
We desperately need to educate these people because they'll continue to vote against theirs and our interests.

throw0101a 6y ago

> Perhaps I'm having a Mandela Effect moment, but hasn't "trickle down" been debunked before this study...repeatedly? The idea has been around in some form or another for a long time: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#History_and_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#History... The most recent reincarnation was known to be not very good economics from the get-go: > What I want to talk about is when, exactly, the GOP went over the edge. Obviously it didn’t happen all at once. But I think the real watershed came in 1980-81, when supply-side economics became the party’s official doctrine. > I’m not sure, even now, whether people who aren’t involved in economic policy discussion understand that supply-side wasn’t a doctrine like monetarism or even real business cycles — ideas I may think are wrong, but which had and to some extent still have significant support from professionals in the field. Supply-side economics never had any evidence behind it; it never had any support in academic research; it barely even had any support among economic researchers and forecasters in the business world. It was and remains crank economics pure and simple, with nothing going for it except political convenience. > Yet 35 years ago the GOP was already willing to embrace this doctrine because it was politically convenient, and could be used to justify tax cuts for the rich, which have always been the priority. > And given this, why should anyone be surprised at all the reality denial and trashing of any kind of evidence that followed? You say economics is a pseudo-science? Fine. First they came for the economists; then they came for the climate scientists and the evolutionary biologists. * https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/the-gops-original-sin/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/the-gops-origin... He has an entire section on this in this recent book Arguing with Zombies, along with how the GOP are worried about deficits and debts when they're out of office, but then don't once they're in power (e.g., tax cuts in the December 2017 budget): * https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324005018 https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324005018 * https://www.worldcat.org/title/arguing-with-zombies-economics-politics-and-the-fight-for-a-better-america/oclc/1134536617 https://www.worldcat.org/title/arguing-with-zombies-economic...

Diederich 6y ago

George Bush, Sr., characterized Reagan's economic paradigm (Reagonomics/supply side/trickle down/etc) as "Voodoo economics": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/270292.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/270292.stm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hnM6xNjeU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hnM6xNjeU

partiallypro 6y ago

"Trickle down" is an economic slur, it's not something economists believe. It's just what some people call a certain policy set.

jariel 6y ago
The term they use is 'supply side' economics - meaning, you support businesses with tax cuts, subsidies, Quantitative Easing, then the 'core' economic mechanisms are healthy, people get hired (i.e. trickle down). As oppose to 'demand side' i.e. give tax cuts or money to the poor - they spend it, the economy grows.
- 0x6862 6y ago
  You forgot the big one - regulation. Supply side is about making it easier for people to produce. You won’t find many free market types supporting QE and subsidies. Would you rather live in a world where there’s only 1 large firm because over regulation has created a high barrier to entry and little incentive to risk starting a competitor, or a world with many firms where it’s easy for people to compete and they’re incentivised to do so?