6 ms·

Trickle down doesn't "work", because "work" has been defined a certain way. Define "work" another way, and it does "work". It also presumes that the governmen

Trickle down doesn't "work", because "work" has been defined a certain way. Define "work" another way, and it does "work". It also presumes that the government somehow has first dibs on what people earn, which is absurd.

ModernMech 5y ago
Also stated as "The purpose of the system is what it does". If the system as designed is concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals (who themselves helped set up the system), how can we say it's not working as intended? It seems to be working out very well for them.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > concentrating wealth This implies that wealth is zero sum. It isn't. Creating wealth, which is what businesses do, is not "concentrating" it.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    You're talking past each other. If a business achieves a 10x leap in productivity and lowers prices for its customers, has it created wealth for others? Yes. If that business is owned by a single person, has that person's wealth relative to the rest of society increased? Also yes.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      I agree with your points. However, Creating wealth is not concentrating it.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Businesses create wealth, and then capture the vast majority of it in the process. Rising inequality should be proof enough for you that wealth concentration is happening.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      No, the greater society is actually enjoying the vast majority of value created by a business. You know, the people happily giving their money to the business in exchange for goods and services.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        Wealth and value are different things. Value can be created without billionaires capturing most of the wealth.
        nickpp 5y ago
        It’s essential that the people who built those businesses receive a corresponding amount of wealth in exchange: it is their main motivator to create the business in the first place. Businesses which, remember, add a tremendous amount of value to the society - value which is much greater than the wealth their founders receive. No billionaires implies no founders. No founders implies no businesses. No businesses implies a poor, stagnant society where every body suffers. Kind of like all the communist experiments of the last century.
        ModernMech 5y ago
        99.999% of business owners are not and never will be billionaires. There's plenty of upside and profit for business founders without the promise of them becoming so obscenely rich. > No businesses implies a poor, stagnant society where every body suffers. Kind of like all the communist experiments of the last century. This is just not a fair characterization; for example the Soviet Union was hardly stagnant -- in the span of 30 years they went from an agrarian society to being the first nation on Earth to launch a satellite and the first man into space.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        Big business are the engines that drive the economy. For that you need billionaires. A nation of small businesses sounds attractive to many people, and it's been tried more than once, but it just doesn't work. You're never going to have chip fabs, automaking, steel smelting, oil refining, ship building, turbine making, etc., without big business. The Soviet Union has been described as a third world economy with a first world military. The US is a first world economy and a first world military. Thanks to the free market. BTW, you can buy Soviet built cars. The only people who buy them are collectors who take a perverse pride in their awfulness.
goodpoint 5y ago
No, the whole promise of "trickle down" is that wealth is supposed to trickle down, as the name suggests. It does not work and increasing inequality is could be called "trickle up".
- ModernMech 5y ago
  That's what you were told it's supposed to do. If it's not in fact doing that, then you have to ask yourself: who told you otherwise and why hasn't anyone fixed it? Also, who is incentivized not to fix it? You should be especially wary if the people who are incentivized not to fix it also have the power to fix it, and continually choose not to exercise it. Unfortunately in our system, the wealthiest people have the most power, and they are incentivized to maintain a system that makes them wealthier. The wealthier they get, the more power they have over the system. We only have to look back as far as the 2017 TCJA to see how this dynamic plays out in real time.
jmcmichael 5y ago
Government, at least in nation-states that are sovereign currency producers, does indeed have first dibs on what people earn. Income taxes are usually withdrawn from salaries before employees are paid, and in the case of independent contractors, business owners, and capital gains taxes, individuals are on the hook retroactively for taxes. The only perspective from which your statement makes sense is from the libertarian fantasy of government-as-parasite and individual-as-independent-producer.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ModernMech 5y ago

Also stated as "The purpose of the system is what it does". If the system as designed is concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals (who themselves helped set up the system), how can we say it's not working as intended? It seems to be working out very well for them.

WalterBright 5y ago
> concentrating wealth This implies that wealth is zero sum. It isn't. Creating wealth, which is what businesses do, is not "concentrating" it.
- triceratops 5y ago
  You're talking past each other. If a business achieves a 10x leap in productivity and lowers prices for its customers, has it created wealth for others? Yes. If that business is owned by a single person, has that person's wealth relative to the rest of society increased? Also yes.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    I agree with your points. However, Creating wealth is not concentrating it.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Businesses create wealth, and then capture the vast majority of it in the process. Rising inequality should be proof enough for you that wealth concentration is happening.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    No, the greater society is actually enjoying the vast majority of value created by a business. You know, the people happily giving their money to the business in exchange for goods and services.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      Wealth and value are different things. Value can be created without billionaires capturing most of the wealth.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        It’s essential that the people who built those businesses receive a corresponding amount of wealth in exchange: it is their main motivator to create the business in the first place. Businesses which, remember, add a tremendous amount of value to the society - value which is much greater than the wealth their founders receive. No billionaires implies no founders. No founders implies no businesses. No businesses implies a poor, stagnant society where every body suffers. Kind of like all the communist experiments of the last century.
        ModernMech 5y ago
        99.999% of business owners are not and never will be billionaires. There's plenty of upside and profit for business founders without the promise of them becoming so obscenely rich. > No businesses implies a poor, stagnant society where every body suffers. Kind of like all the communist experiments of the last century. This is just not a fair characterization; for example the Soviet Union was hardly stagnant -- in the span of 30 years they went from an agrarian society to being the first nation on Earth to launch a satellite and the first man into space.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        Big business are the engines that drive the economy. For that you need billionaires. A nation of small businesses sounds attractive to many people, and it's been tried more than once, but it just doesn't work. You're never going to have chip fabs, automaking, steel smelting, oil refining, ship building, turbine making, etc., without big business. The Soviet Union has been described as a third world economy with a first world military. The US is a first world economy and a first world military. Thanks to the free market. BTW, you can buy Soviet built cars. The only people who buy them are collectors who take a perverse pride in their awfulness.

goodpoint 5y ago

No, the whole promise of "trickle down" is that wealth is supposed to trickle down, as the name suggests. It does not work and increasing inequality is could be called "trickle up".

ModernMech 5y ago
That's what you were told it's supposed to do. If it's not in fact doing that, then you have to ask yourself: who told you otherwise and why hasn't anyone fixed it? Also, who is incentivized not to fix it? You should be especially wary if the people who are incentivized not to fix it also have the power to fix it, and continually choose not to exercise it. Unfortunately in our system, the wealthiest people have the most power, and they are incentivized to maintain a system that makes them wealthier. The wealthier they get, the more power they have over the system. We only have to look back as far as the 2017 TCJA to see how this dynamic plays out in real time.

jmcmichael 5y ago

Government, at least in nation-states that are sovereign currency producers, does indeed have first dibs on what people earn. Income taxes are usually withdrawn from salaries before employees are paid, and in the case of independent contractors, business owners, and capital gains taxes, individuals are on the hook retroactively for taxes. The only perspective from which your statement makes sense is from the libertarian fantasy of government-as-parasite and individual-as-independent-producer.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]