6 ms·

While I want to agree with you, you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance.

cies 5y ago
> you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance. So what is unsubstantiated in your view? The fact that super rich use offshore accounts? That super rich make more money with moving assets than they could make with labor? That poor people will likely spend given money quickly?
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  Should I quote the parts in question? They seem obvious to me, as it’s every sentence.
  - pegasus 5y ago
    Should he/she beg you to do so? They've already asked you once. And no, it's not obvious to me what your counterargument is.
    - bottled_poe 5y ago
      Fine.. > Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). Clearly hyperbole. Where’s the evidence for this broad claim? > It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with. Is this not “free market economics” ? Seems there’s a non-mythical basis there.. I could be wrong though if that’s a fictional concept? Would love to be enlightened. > It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that. This is opinion/conjecture. > Go figure, give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. Appeal to probability, evidence? > Give a billionaire $20M, see the money go into the fintech machine and pour out into offshore accounts, as the billionaire holds on to whatever financial product they bought forever as long as it appreciates faster than inflation. Again, speak to probability, evidence? > Oh, and they'll spend $200 on a fancy dinner. Is that illegal? What’s the problem here? > Cue Pikachu face when the economy doesn't improve. Must I comment on this one?
      - romwell 5y ago
        >> Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). >Clearly hyperbole. Where’s the evidence for this broad claim? Dare I say.... in the fucking article?[1] [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29483131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29483131
  - romwell 5y ago
    I'd be so happy if everything I said was obvious, because in that case, trickle-down wouldn't have been the de-facto economic direction of the US since Reagan. But it seems like the obviousness of the stupidity of the idea of trickle-down has been lost on us; hence the study. Do quote though — maybe it'll help the obvious point trickle down to the rest of the population.
    - bottled_poe 5y ago
      See my other response to sibling.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Moving assets is labor. Just like making computers copy data over the Internet is labor.
  - cies 5y ago
    Labor is what makes a wage. Moving assets is called investing. With labor the pay is tied to the number of hours worked.
    - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
      The Interweb's dictionaries disagree with you. Wages are not mentioned in any definition of labor. It is simply synonymous with work, particularily the physically exhausting kind, which sitting in front of a computer shuffling numbers all day long arguably is.
      - cies 5y ago
        It also means birthing a child. Economically there is the distinction. If you do not agree there is you, IMHO, have fallen for the capitalist's propaganda that they "do labor", "add value" and "you can be one too if you work hard and do not spend money on useless things". Lol.
        hypertele-Xii 5y ago
        So what do you think they do all day? Assets don't move by themselves. First of all, where do you even move them? You have to research. Research takes time. Then you gotta figure out how to move them there. More research. And then you gotta move them at the right time, yet more research. It's not like they have an AI that just makes optimal asset moves automatically... What do you do for work, huh? Sit in front of a computer all day? I bet a lot of people think you're just cheating your way to wages too. Imagine how someone literally laying bricks feels about your 100k comfy office salary.
romwell 5y ago
While I want to agree with you, it so happens that your comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance. The substance of my comment is a simple model that explains why trickle-down doesn't work. If it helps, I'll add some references to support my argument: [1] TFA Thank you for the effort you put into providing your feedback.
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  It’s untrue. My comment is fact, which is easily verifiable on isolated inspection.
- EarlKing 5y ago
  No, parent was right, your comment lacks all substance. It supposes that 'the rich' simply hoard wealth like a mythical dragon in a cave, scrooge mcducking through it while the poor, tired masses starve to death. The truth is that they conserve their wealth by investing it, which means that money recirculates into the economy to provide for the continued prosperity of others. If they just sat on their money they'd actually lose out as their money becomes less valuable through inflation. The one objection that truly matters in this scenario (and it's one you haven't raised) is that some people get a bailout when their investments fail, and others don't. That's the real problem. As long as intelligence is normally distributed and there is pressure against all to regress to the mean then malinvestment will occur and ultimately result in 'the rich' becoming 'not rich'. If, however, someone puts their finger on the scale and effectively ensures that the stupid-rich (literally) can't lose then the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Solution: Stop doing that.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > If, however, someone puts their finger on the scale and effectively ensures that the stupid-rich (literally) can't lose then the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Solution: Stop doing that. When we get to the point money is easily converted in political power, you can see not only the finger tipping the scale, but a whole foot firmly planted there. Good luck convincing the rich, who actually convinced themselves they earned their money fairly, to stop doing it.
koheripbal 5y ago
The article is also hyperbole. They use 2020 as a key data point, despite it obviously being an outlier due to covid. Moreover, the only people talking about trickle down are people on the left. No one on the right has mentioned trickle down since Reagan was president. It's a complete strawman.
- romwell 5y ago
  As I said in my other comment: —2017 was an outlier due to Solar eclipse. You need to justify what issue you have with 2020 as it pertains to the conclusion of the study. —Just because the Republicans don't call "trickle down" by its name doesn't mean they aren't pushing for it. In particular, we already are doing "trickle-down" — have been, since Reagan. To not do it would mean to increase taxes, by a lot. Obstructionism is trickle-down. Of course the right wouldn't mention "trickle down" after implementing it. It sounds like you're reasoning in bad faith; consider shaping your thoughts differently.
syndacks 5y ago
I actually think this is a great comment, with more substance than your typical HN nit. They are introducing the concept of marginal propensity to consume(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consu...), an economic idea that has everything to do with why trickle down is bogus. AND, it's funny. So extra points for that.
- romwell 5y ago
  Just wanted to say thanks for your response. I feel somewhat attacked by some of the other comments, being flagged, and a threat of ban from the admins; it felt as if people were ignoring the words I was saying, and were responding to something else entirely. Thank you.

cies 5y ago

> you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance. So what is unsubstantiated in your view? The fact that super rich use offshore accounts? That super rich make more money with moving assets than they could make with labor? That poor people will likely spend given money quickly?

bottled_poe 5y ago
Should I quote the parts in question? They seem obvious to me, as it’s every sentence.
- pegasus 5y ago
  Should he/she beg you to do so? They've already asked you once. And no, it's not obvious to me what your counterargument is.
  - bottled_poe 5y ago
    Fine.. > Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). Clearly hyperbole. Where’s the evidence for this broad claim? > It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with. Is this not “free market economics” ? Seems there’s a non-mythical basis there.. I could be wrong though if that’s a fictional concept? Would love to be enlightened. > It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that. This is opinion/conjecture. > Go figure, give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. Appeal to probability, evidence? > Give a billionaire $20M, see the money go into the fintech machine and pour out into offshore accounts, as the billionaire holds on to whatever financial product they bought forever as long as it appreciates faster than inflation. Again, speak to probability, evidence? > Oh, and they'll spend $200 on a fancy dinner. Is that illegal? What’s the problem here? > Cue Pikachu face when the economy doesn't improve. Must I comment on this one?
    - romwell 5y ago
      >> Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). >Clearly hyperbole. Where’s the evidence for this broad claim? Dare I say.... in the fucking article?[1] [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29483131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29483131
- romwell 5y ago
  I'd be so happy if everything I said was obvious, because in that case, trickle-down wouldn't have been the de-facto economic direction of the US since Reagan. But it seems like the obviousness of the stupidity of the idea of trickle-down has been lost on us; hence the study. Do quote though — maybe it'll help the obvious point trickle down to the rest of the population.
  - bottled_poe 5y ago
    See my other response to sibling.
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Moving assets is labor. Just like making computers copy data over the Internet is labor.
- cies 5y ago
  Labor is what makes a wage. Moving assets is called investing. With labor the pay is tied to the number of hours worked.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    The Interweb's dictionaries disagree with you. Wages are not mentioned in any definition of labor. It is simply synonymous with work, particularily the physically exhausting kind, which sitting in front of a computer shuffling numbers all day long arguably is.
    - cies 5y ago
      It also means birthing a child. Economically there is the distinction. If you do not agree there is you, IMHO, have fallen for the capitalist's propaganda that they "do labor", "add value" and "you can be one too if you work hard and do not spend money on useless things". Lol.
      - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
        So what do you think they do all day? Assets don't move by themselves. First of all, where do you even move them? You have to research. Research takes time. Then you gotta figure out how to move them there. More research. And then you gotta move them at the right time, yet more research. It's not like they have an AI that just makes optimal asset moves automatically... What do you do for work, huh? Sit in front of a computer all day? I bet a lot of people think you're just cheating your way to wages too. Imagine how someone literally laying bricks feels about your 100k comfy office salary.

romwell 5y ago

While I want to agree with you, it so happens that your comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance. The substance of my comment is a simple model that explains why trickle-down doesn't work. If it helps, I'll add some references to support my argument: [1] TFA Thank you for the effort you put into providing your feedback.

bottled_poe 5y ago
It’s untrue. My comment is fact, which is easily verifiable on isolated inspection.
EarlKing 5y ago
No, parent was right, your comment lacks all substance. It supposes that 'the rich' simply hoard wealth like a mythical dragon in a cave, scrooge mcducking through it while the poor, tired masses starve to death. The truth is that they conserve their wealth by investing it, which means that money recirculates into the economy to provide for the continued prosperity of others. If they just sat on their money they'd actually lose out as their money becomes less valuable through inflation. The one objection that truly matters in this scenario (and it's one you haven't raised) is that some people get a bailout when their investments fail, and others don't. That's the real problem. As long as intelligence is normally distributed and there is pressure against all to regress to the mean then malinvestment will occur and ultimately result in 'the rich' becoming 'not rich'. If, however, someone puts their finger on the scale and effectively ensures that the stupid-rich (literally) can't lose then the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Solution: Stop doing that.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > If, however, someone puts their finger on the scale and effectively ensures that the stupid-rich (literally) can't lose then the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Solution: Stop doing that. When we get to the point money is easily converted in political power, you can see not only the finger tipping the scale, but a whole foot firmly planted there. Good luck convincing the rich, who actually convinced themselves they earned their money fairly, to stop doing it.

koheripbal 5y ago

The article is also hyperbole. They use 2020 as a key data point, despite it obviously being an outlier due to covid. Moreover, the only people talking about trickle down are people on the left. No one on the right has mentioned trickle down since Reagan was president. It's a complete strawman.

romwell 5y ago
As I said in my other comment: —2017 was an outlier due to Solar eclipse. You need to justify what issue you have with 2020 as it pertains to the conclusion of the study. —Just because the Republicans don't call "trickle down" by its name doesn't mean they aren't pushing for it. In particular, we already are doing "trickle-down" — have been, since Reagan. To not do it would mean to increase taxes, by a lot. Obstructionism is trickle-down. Of course the right wouldn't mention "trickle down" after implementing it. It sounds like you're reasoning in bad faith; consider shaping your thoughts differently.

syndacks 5y ago

I actually think this is a great comment, with more substance than your typical HN nit. They are introducing the concept of marginal propensity to consume(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consu...), an economic idea that has everything to do with why trickle down is bogus. AND, it's funny. So extra points for that.

romwell 5y ago
Just wanted to say thanks for your response. I feel somewhat attacked by some of the other comments, being flagged, and a threat of ban from the admins; it felt as if people were ignoring the words I was saying, and were responding to something else entirely. Thank you.