5 ms·

Brb, off to set fire to everything... I think this could very easily be demonstrated with the opposite outcome, but I think I just grow increasing tired over t

Brb, off to set fire to everything... I think this could very easily be demonstrated with the opposite outcome, but I think I just grow increasing tired over time of economic monetary benefit being the judge of positive outcome as an 'average,' rather than wider health and value with a measure of opportunity. I also get a sense of trickle-down economics threaded through this piece.

eru 5y ago
What is trickle-down economics? The piece is steeped in a conventional understanding of economics as eg taught in universities. That might be what you are detecting? Economics is one of those subjects where the most basic, orthodox positions are some of the most controversial in 'polite conversation'.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Technically trickle-down economics is a myth that is being propagated to support supply side economics. There is nothing wrong with supply side economics if your economy has supply side problems. If your economy has demand side problems then supply side economics will do absolutely nothing.
  - eru 5y ago
    Sounds like a strawman to me, or at best a mischaracterization. Has anyone ever held this belief in the caricatured form? > If your economy has demand side problems then supply side economics will do absolutely nothing. Well, if you have both supply side and demand side problems, fixing at least one side is better than nothing? Are you referring to a specific economy with demand side problems?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Trickle-down economics is the mistaken idea that giving money to the wealthiest individuals/companies helps the entire economy, as those individuals/companies are the best able to leverage each dollar to produce value for everyone else ('the money put in to the top trickles down to everyone even at the bottom').
  - eru 5y ago
    Sounds like a strawmen to me. Has anyone ever held this belief?
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      It has definitely been used to push such policy decisions. Whether it was honestly held by those pushing it on TV, or by those who voted for them, is hard to discern.
      - eru 5y ago
        https://www.theadvocates.org/2014/01/the-trickle-down-economics-myth-and-how-to-refute-it/ https://www.theadvocates.org/2014/01/the-trickle-down-econom... suggests the opposite. > “Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this ‘trickle-down’ theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a ‘trickle-down’ policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.” > Further, Sowell notes: “The ‘trickle-down’ theory cannot be found in even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories — including J.A. Schumpeter’s monumental History of Economic Analysis, more than a thousand pages long and printed in very small type.” No judgement implied on the economic matters at hand. Just on the matter that 'trickle down economics' is not a position actually held by anyone as far as I can tell.
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        The Reagan, Bush and Trump era tax cuts make no sense of we assume the government has any responsibility to common people, unless you invoke 'Trickle-down economics', the disparaging term for 'supply-side economics'.
        eru 5y ago
        When you mean Trump era tax cuts, are you talking about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017 one? There was a lot in that package. See https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/12/much_ado_about.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/12/much_ado_about.html for an assessment (by a Trump hater..) that does not agree with the 'trickle down economics' accusation. > 1. Let’s start with the personal income tax reforms. There is some simplification, as many more taxpayers will be able to use the standard deduction. On the other hand, there’s some added complexity in the new deduction for “pass through” businesses. On net I am slightly encouraged by the bill, as I see it as a first step toward eliminating deductions from the tax code. But we still have a long way to go. > The distributional consequences of the tax cut are not very important. The top rate comes down a bit, but that’s offset by the fact that state and local taxes can no longer be deducted. Some of the tax cuts benefiting lower income people are scheduled to expire, but almost no one thinks that will happen. > 2. The estate tax exemption was doubled, but this threshold has been rising very rapidly for many decades. It’s a change, but hardly revolutionary. Recall that the House bill called for its elimination. > 3. The big corporate income tax cut is the single most significant provision. But even President Obama favored a rate cut to 28%. This excellent WSJ article shows that even after the federal corporate tax rate is reduced to 21%, the total corporate tax rate (including state taxes) is in the middle of the pack for developed countries. It was inevitable that the US would eventually move the rate down to meet global competition—hardly a revolutionary change.
imtringued 5y ago
It's not trickle down economics. It's "clean slate" economics.

eru 5y ago

What is trickle-down economics? The piece is steeped in a conventional understanding of economics as eg taught in universities. That might be what you are detecting? Economics is one of those subjects where the most basic, orthodox positions are some of the most controversial in 'polite conversation'.

imtringued 5y ago
Technically trickle-down economics is a myth that is being propagated to support supply side economics. There is nothing wrong with supply side economics if your economy has supply side problems. If your economy has demand side problems then supply side economics will do absolutely nothing.
- eru 5y ago
  Sounds like a strawman to me, or at best a mischaracterization. Has anyone ever held this belief in the caricatured form? > If your economy has demand side problems then supply side economics will do absolutely nothing. Well, if you have both supply side and demand side problems, fixing at least one side is better than nothing? Are you referring to a specific economy with demand side problems?
tsimionescu 5y ago
Trickle-down economics is the mistaken idea that giving money to the wealthiest individuals/companies helps the entire economy, as those individuals/companies are the best able to leverage each dollar to produce value for everyone else ('the money put in to the top trickles down to everyone even at the bottom').
- eru 5y ago
  Sounds like a strawmen to me. Has anyone ever held this belief?
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    It has definitely been used to push such policy decisions. Whether it was honestly held by those pushing it on TV, or by those who voted for them, is hard to discern.
    - eru 5y ago
      https://www.theadvocates.org/2014/01/the-trickle-down-economics-myth-and-how-to-refute-it/ https://www.theadvocates.org/2014/01/the-trickle-down-econom... suggests the opposite. > “Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this ‘trickle-down’ theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a ‘trickle-down’ policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.” > Further, Sowell notes: “The ‘trickle-down’ theory cannot be found in even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories — including J.A. Schumpeter’s monumental History of Economic Analysis, more than a thousand pages long and printed in very small type.” No judgement implied on the economic matters at hand. Just on the matter that 'trickle down economics' is not a position actually held by anyone as far as I can tell.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        The Reagan, Bush and Trump era tax cuts make no sense of we assume the government has any responsibility to common people, unless you invoke 'Trickle-down economics', the disparaging term for 'supply-side economics'.
        eru 5y ago
        When you mean Trump era tax cuts, are you talking about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017 one? There was a lot in that package. See https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/12/much_ado_about.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/12/much_ado_about.html for an assessment (by a Trump hater..) that does not agree with the 'trickle down economics' accusation. > 1. Let’s start with the personal income tax reforms. There is some simplification, as many more taxpayers will be able to use the standard deduction. On the other hand, there’s some added complexity in the new deduction for “pass through” businesses. On net I am slightly encouraged by the bill, as I see it as a first step toward eliminating deductions from the tax code. But we still have a long way to go. > The distributional consequences of the tax cut are not very important. The top rate comes down a bit, but that’s offset by the fact that state and local taxes can no longer be deducted. Some of the tax cuts benefiting lower income people are scheduled to expire, but almost no one thinks that will happen. > 2. The estate tax exemption was doubled, but this threshold has been rising very rapidly for many decades. It’s a change, but hardly revolutionary. Recall that the House bill called for its elimination. > 3. The big corporate income tax cut is the single most significant provision. But even President Obama favored a rate cut to 28%. This excellent WSJ article shows that even after the federal corporate tax rate is reduced to 21%, the total corporate tax rate (including state taxes) is in the middle of the pack for developed countries. It was inevitable that the US would eventually move the rate down to meet global competition—hardly a revolutionary change.

imtringued 5y ago

It's not trickle down economics. It's "clean slate" economics.