5 ms·

TIL that in 2024 people are still trying to claim that trickle-down economics works. Given all the wealth at the top these days, I'll expect my trickle-down che

TIL that in 2024 people are still trying to claim that trickle-down economics works. Given all the wealth at the top these days, I'll expect my trickle-down check in the mail any day now.

chasd00 2y ago
Giving $7B to the gov changes zero. Not a single function of the government will change not a single thing. They should have just thrown it in the trash. At least go pay off student loans with a lottery until the money is gone or something, that could help. Maybe pay all the mortgages in a small town or something. What they did by giving it to the gov is the same as setting it on fire in the front yard. It’s kind of upsetting.
- sneak 2y ago
  The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that you must then believe there to be a moral obligation to always pay service people in cash and avoid paying taxes at every possible opportunity. Do I understand your position correctly?
  - throwaway984393 2y ago
    [dead]
  - ilammy 2y ago
    Don’t put your words in their mouth. Giving government money doesn’t really change the way government operates. The government has the budget for the year and that’s the spending for the year. If government needs something done, an item gets budgeted, money is borrowed, and paid out to get stuff done. Giving money to the government only offsets the debt; nothing else changes from that besides the number in the spreadsheet.
- IAmNotACellist 2y ago
  Plus they'll have increased the deficit by $7B by the time the ink dries on the tax payment check.
- consteval 2y ago
  If you take this to its logical conclusion then nobody pays taxes and then society falls apart. Clearly, that money does something.
tastyfreeze 2y ago
Government has put up a bunch of roofs, troughs and channels to catch all the trickle. How much of your salary goes to something required by government? People making money by doing or making things other people want is not evil. Government setting up fences to protect the current winners is the problem.
mcmoor 2y ago
Me in developing country sure see that billionaire's wealths already trickle down to developed country's citizens.
- zztop44 2y ago
  How can you be sure it’s not wealth trickling up instead?
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    I don't think you can consume your way to a higher standard of living. The only way to sustainably increase the standard of living is to increase productivity. This can only come from investment into hard capital and into human capital (education). So to me, it would be very hard to make an argument that it trickles up. It has to come from investment. And investment in the private sector is usually done by rich people, because you need money in the first place to invest and also because investing well makes you rich.
    - cycomanic 2y ago
      Except for the fact wages and middle class wealth has not kept up with productivity for ages in most western countries. Also considering that the super-rich in developing nations are not that far behind the super-rich in developed nations, why hasn't their wealth trickled down and uplifted those developing nations? The reality is that developing nations have even higher wealth inequality, so refuting your argument.
      - missedthecue 2y ago
        Wages won't ever eat up 100% of the productivity gains. That defeats the point of investing in productivity gains. If you have ten ditch diggers, but then buy a steamshovel, the operator of the steamshovel earns more than the ditch diggers, but doesn't earn 10 salaries. I am from a developing country. There aren't a lot of super rich here. In fact there isn't much wealth at all. Having some greater gini coefficient doesn't mean you have more wealth, inequality really isn't a relevant measure. If raising wages was the only component to development, Somalia could simply set their minimum wage to $50 an hour and watch the country soar. Wages follow development, not the other around.
IAmNotACellist 2y ago
You think investment = trickle down economics? Is your 401k trickle down economics?
- chgs 2y ago
  401k is a massive Ponzi scheme where people working today hope that people in the future will value their work. Imagine a world where you had 15 billionaires and 5 people working. How much are are. Those billions worth when they are fighting each other to have one of the 5 useful people wipe their ass in their care home?
  - WrongAssumption 2y ago
    I’m not confident you know what a 401k is.
    - chgs 2y ago
      Like all investments it’s a hope that trading work done today will be worth work done in the future. This only holds when supply of work is high and demand is low. If the amount of work requested in the future is higher than the supply then it doesn’t matter how many pieces of paper you have to prove that you worked in the past, you are not going to get that work done. With a shrinking population you’re relying of productivity gains, and in areas that old people need, like personal care, there’s only limited gains to be had. If there’s only 100 hours of ass wiping being done but 200 hours demanded, then half of the people requiring that service will be disapointed. But that’s just the general problem of timeshifting your work. You rely on the next generation to honour “the deal”. Now the 401k specifically has other issues. It tends to be “pile money in the S&P”, which simply increases the values of those stocks regardless of their fundamental worth. Passive investments lead to bubbles and collapse. https://www.ft.com/content/994bdda8-b704-4e4c-9b19-4e0021f0b309 https://www.ft.com/content/994bdda8-b704-4e4c-9b19-4e0021f0b... Throw both of those together and you end up with a disaster waiting to happen.
randomdata 2y ago
Who claims that “trickle-down economics” works? The term was literally coined as a joke about how it doesn’t work.

TIL that in 2024 people are still trying to claim that trickle-down economics works. Given all the wealth at the top these days, I'll expect my trickle-down check in the mail any day now.

chasd00 2y ago

Giving $7B to the gov changes zero. Not a single function of the government will change not a single thing. They should have just thrown it in the trash. At least go pay off student loans with a lottery until the money is gone or something, that could help. Maybe pay all the mortgages in a small town or something. What they did by giving it to the gov is the same as setting it on fire in the front yard. It’s kind of upsetting.

sneak 2y ago
The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that you must then believe there to be a moral obligation to always pay service people in cash and avoid paying taxes at every possible opportunity. Do I understand your position correctly?
- throwaway984393 2y ago
  [dead]
- ilammy 2y ago
  Don’t put your words in their mouth. Giving government money doesn’t really change the way government operates. The government has the budget for the year and that’s the spending for the year. If government needs something done, an item gets budgeted, money is borrowed, and paid out to get stuff done. Giving money to the government only offsets the debt; nothing else changes from that besides the number in the spreadsheet.
IAmNotACellist 2y ago
Plus they'll have increased the deficit by $7B by the time the ink dries on the tax payment check.
consteval 2y ago
If you take this to its logical conclusion then nobody pays taxes and then society falls apart. Clearly, that money does something.

tastyfreeze 2y ago

Government has put up a bunch of roofs, troughs and channels to catch all the trickle. How much of your salary goes to something required by government? People making money by doing or making things other people want is not evil. Government setting up fences to protect the current winners is the problem.

mcmoor 2y ago

Me in developing country sure see that billionaire's wealths already trickle down to developed country's citizens.

zztop44 2y ago
How can you be sure it’s not wealth trickling up instead?
- missedthecue 2y ago
  I don't think you can consume your way to a higher standard of living. The only way to sustainably increase the standard of living is to increase productivity. This can only come from investment into hard capital and into human capital (education). So to me, it would be very hard to make an argument that it trickles up. It has to come from investment. And investment in the private sector is usually done by rich people, because you need money in the first place to invest and also because investing well makes you rich.
  - cycomanic 2y ago
    Except for the fact wages and middle class wealth has not kept up with productivity for ages in most western countries. Also considering that the super-rich in developing nations are not that far behind the super-rich in developed nations, why hasn't their wealth trickled down and uplifted those developing nations? The reality is that developing nations have even higher wealth inequality, so refuting your argument.
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      Wages won't ever eat up 100% of the productivity gains. That defeats the point of investing in productivity gains. If you have ten ditch diggers, but then buy a steamshovel, the operator of the steamshovel earns more than the ditch diggers, but doesn't earn 10 salaries. I am from a developing country. There aren't a lot of super rich here. In fact there isn't much wealth at all. Having some greater gini coefficient doesn't mean you have more wealth, inequality really isn't a relevant measure. If raising wages was the only component to development, Somalia could simply set their minimum wage to $50 an hour and watch the country soar. Wages follow development, not the other around.

IAmNotACellist 2y ago

You think investment = trickle down economics? Is your 401k trickle down economics?

chgs 2y ago
401k is a massive Ponzi scheme where people working today hope that people in the future will value their work. Imagine a world where you had 15 billionaires and 5 people working. How much are are. Those billions worth when they are fighting each other to have one of the 5 useful people wipe their ass in their care home?
- WrongAssumption 2y ago
  I’m not confident you know what a 401k is.
  - chgs 2y ago
    Like all investments it’s a hope that trading work done today will be worth work done in the future. This only holds when supply of work is high and demand is low. If the amount of work requested in the future is higher than the supply then it doesn’t matter how many pieces of paper you have to prove that you worked in the past, you are not going to get that work done. With a shrinking population you’re relying of productivity gains, and in areas that old people need, like personal care, there’s only limited gains to be had. If there’s only 100 hours of ass wiping being done but 200 hours demanded, then half of the people requiring that service will be disapointed. But that’s just the general problem of timeshifting your work. You rely on the next generation to honour “the deal”. Now the 401k specifically has other issues. It tends to be “pile money in the S&P”, which simply increases the values of those stocks regardless of their fundamental worth. Passive investments lead to bubbles and collapse. https://www.ft.com/content/994bdda8-b704-4e4c-9b19-4e0021f0b309 https://www.ft.com/content/994bdda8-b704-4e4c-9b19-4e0021f0b... Throw both of those together and you end up with a disaster waiting to happen.

randomdata 2y ago

Who claims that “trickle-down economics” works? The term was literally coined as a joke about how it doesn’t work.