3 ms·
I don't know what the original "trickle down" theory is but if it is all about money, then both the theory and its rebuttal are just circular reasoning. The wa
by GuB-42 5y ago
I don't know what the original "trickle down" theory is but if it is all about money, then both the theory and its rebuttal are just circular reasoning.
The way I understand the "trickle down" idea is that the global economy is not a zero-sum game and when rich people build something, the poor indirectly take advantage of it, even if the wealth repartition curve doesn't change. For example, a rich person may use his wealth to make cheap computers, which sell well, so he becomes even richer, the poor don't become richer, but now they have computers, so in the end, even if wealth inequality didn't change, or maybe even became worse, the poor are better off, thanks to computers being cheaper. If we didn't let the rich entrepreneur get rich, there would be no cheap computers and while the poor may be wealthier on paper, they still won't have computers.
But if we only care about money, then yes, of course inequality causes inequality, and if the "trickle down" theory says otherwise, then it is simply illogical, just as its debunking is circular reasoning.
The study is not worthless, it is an interesting observational study, but I don't see how it disproves the more interesting non zero-sum version of "trickle down". For that it should also use indicators that are not money, like health, education, etc...
- Frost1x 5y ago>I don't know what the original "trickle down" theory is but if it is all about money, then both the theory and its rebuttal are just circular reasoning. It's more about giving preferential treatment, power, or advantage to the wealthy because they are considered the value creators and by giving them bigger breaks, advantages, or ability to make guidance decisions, they will move things in directions that benefit everyone.
- rsj_hn 5y ago> It's more about giving preferential treatment, power, or advantage to the wealthy "trickle down" is a slur against a set of economically liberal policies. It's not a "theory". It's not an economic model. And it's certainly not well-defined. It would be like arguing against "revolving door" sentencing, which is another slur. Point being, anyone who uses the term "trickle down" is advocating some sort of propaganda, and tuning them out or calling them out for being propagandists is the best course of action. Being on the guard for these markers of propaganda is important in today's media environment, where so often advocacy masquerades as both news and science. That does not mean that underneath all these political slurs there aren't useful debates about, for example, what is the right tax rate on capital income or property taxes. Should we increase or decrease business regulation, etc. Those are all good discussions to have, but unlike the slurs, they are actually nuanced and people who approach them understand there are trade offs not simply reducible to "trickle down" or "revolving door". Therefore the goal of these slurs is to reduce thought. To eliminate nuance and to hide painful trade offs. To make it seem like there is one simple, obvious, correct solution to what is, in fact, a complex issue with no obvious solutions.