6 ms·

> as if it's something that needs to be debunked. When half the country has believed something for close to a half a century, across multiple generations, you

> as if it's something that needs to be debunked. When half the country has believed something for close to a half a century, across multiple generations, you bet your ass it needs to be debunked. The fallacy of the "precious job creators" is as American as "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" The fact that you and I were not dumb enough to fall for it doesn't really help anyone in the grand scheme of things. There's still an insane amount of work left in educating the public, and we may even be regressing at this point.

loeg 2mo ago
No one believes in trickle-down economics. As GP said, it's a pejorative straw man invented by its opponents.
- smallmancontrov 2mo ago
  So you're saying that when the Fox News talking head drags out the Laffer Curve to smuggle into the conversation the assumption that the next round of tax cuts for billionaires will unleash enormous economic growth that net-benefits everyone, he doesn't believe what he's saying? You know what, you might just be right.
- jibal 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - manlymuppet 2mo ago
    Can I extend an olive branch anyways? I really believe in good faith, civil conversation, and I'd love the opportunity to make amends here. You've said you won't respond further, but seeing your passion, I think it would be great if we could have a civil conversation. I genuinely believe that trickle-down and supply-side economics are meaningfully different things, and I think there would be much to gain from hearing your perspective in more detail. My thesis boils down to the fact that supply-side economics (say for example, something like small business tax credits) often gets conflated with trickle-down economics undeservedly. Trickle-down policy--take money from the poor and give it to the rich indiscriminately--is an objectively horrible idea, but I would say also that nobody is seriously arguing for that sort of thing. (Also, I'm have no idea what "GP" stands for.)
    - drdeca 2mo ago
      “GP” in this context is short for “grandparent” or “grandparent post”. It means the comment that they comment they are replying to, is a reply to.
    - nobodyandproud 2mo ago
      Not the OP. But posting from a low-use, 10 month old alt handle (?) doesn't really gesture good faith.
      - manlymuppet 2mo ago
        I agree. If my sentimental promises are not enough, I don't blame you haha. But I hope my pleading is evidence enough anyways. However much this means: I really am being sincere.
    - smallmancontrov 2mo ago
      I'll pick up the conversation if GP won't (GP = grand parent, your post is the parent of mine and the post above is the grandparent of mine). You're missing the forest for the trees. I argue that the forest is a high level strategy that has been playing out for approaching 50 years: 1. Push money into the capital economy and cut taxes. If anyone complains, cite growth. 2. Push taxes into the labor economy and cut benefits. If anyone complains, cite fiscal responsibility. This doesn't necessarily show up to an egregious degree in any individual policy. I can think of a few examples but that's beside the point. If (1) and (2) are aggressively promoted and happen frequently while the invisible (3) and (4) -- capital pays taxes, labor gets benefits -- aren't and don't, then the net effect is intentionally and predictably and observably upwards re-distributive. Furthermore, I don't buy the excuse that policy wonks don't understand this. Back in comparative government class, they taught us that Iran was a theocracy rather than a democracy not because it didn't do the rituals of electing leaders, but because a Council of Religious Experts got to select the candidates. You can have any color you want, as long as it is black (or Shia Muslim). In any case, the filter is the policy. Between campaign finance and private ownership of media, it's no real surprise that in the US we have the policy filtering mechanism that allows (1),(2) and blocks (3),(4). Again, the filter is the policy, the same logic that makes Iran a theocracy shoves the US towards plutocracy, and we need to push back by shifting aggregate legislative attention away from (1), (2) and towards (3), (4) rather than getting bogged down in debates over whether any particular fig-leaf appropriately covers any particular penis.
- expedition32 2mo ago
  So why all the tax cuts? Sure the GOP are evil bastards who don't believe in it but apparently their voters do.
- bediger4000 2mo ago
  Maybe they don't believe in "trickle-down economics", they same way the do believe that "CRT and DEI are bad". They certainly believe that lowering tax rates raises revenue collected, that's an article of faith. I've see ex-Congressman Joe Walsh advocate for that viewpoint within the last year.
- throw0101a 2mo ago
  > No one believes in trickle-down economics. As GP said, it's a pejorative straw man invented by its opponents. Except the folks that implement it: > The cuts were based on model legislation published by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),[8][9][10][11] supported by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer,[12] anti-tax leader Grover Norquist,[13] and the influential industrialists Charles and David Koch.[14][15] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment The term was invented by its opponents, but it was a label that was put on actual policies, like Hoover's: > In 1932, humorist and social commentator Will Rogers wrote a column criticizing Herbert Hoover's policies and approach to The Great Depression and stated: "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot."[11] In 2007, political commentator William J. Bennett credited Rogers for coining the term "trickle down" and observed its persistent use throughout the decades since.[12] And Reagan's: > Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign for the presidency on a platform advocating for supply-side economics. During the 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries, George H. W. Bush had derided Reagan's economic approach as "voodoo economics".[16] Following Reagan's election, the "trickle-down" reached wide circulation with the publication of "The Education of David Stockman", a December 1981 interview of Reagan's incoming Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman, in the magazine Atlantic Monthly. In the interview, Stockman expressed doubts about supply side economics, telling journalist William Greider that the Kemp–Roth Tax Cut was a way to rebrand a tax cut for the top income bracket to make it easier to pass into law.[17] Stockman said that "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[17][18][19] Reagan administration officials including Michael Deaver wanted Stockman to be fired in response to his comments, but he was ultimately kept on in exchange for a private apology.[20] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics It is pejorative, but it is not attacking a straw man, but actual policies that right-wing folks want implemented (and have).
throw0101a 2mo ago
> When half the country has believed something for close to a half a century, across multiple generations, you bet your ass it needs to be debunked. It dates back to the late 1890s (and has been criticized since then): > In 1896, United States Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan claimed in his Cross of Gold speech that his opposition based their policies on the idea that the success of the rich would "leak through" to the lower classes, stating: "There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below."[8][9][10] > In 1932, humorist and social commentator Will Rogers wrote a column criticizing Herbert Hoover's policies and approach to The Great Depression and stated: "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot."[11] In 2007, political commentator William J. Bennett credited Rogers for coining the term "trickle down" and observed its persistent use throughout the decades since.[12] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics so I'm not hopeful it will ever go away.
- e40 2mo ago
  I had no idea the idea was so old!

loeg 2mo ago

No one believes in trickle-down economics. As GP said, it's a pejorative straw man invented by its opponents.

smallmancontrov 2mo ago
So you're saying that when the Fox News talking head drags out the Laffer Curve to smuggle into the conversation the assumption that the next round of tax cuts for billionaires will unleash enormous economic growth that net-benefits everyone, he doesn't believe what he's saying? You know what, you might just be right.
jibal 2mo ago
[flagged]
- manlymuppet 2mo ago
  Can I extend an olive branch anyways? I really believe in good faith, civil conversation, and I'd love the opportunity to make amends here. You've said you won't respond further, but seeing your passion, I think it would be great if we could have a civil conversation. I genuinely believe that trickle-down and supply-side economics are meaningfully different things, and I think there would be much to gain from hearing your perspective in more detail. My thesis boils down to the fact that supply-side economics (say for example, something like small business tax credits) often gets conflated with trickle-down economics undeservedly. Trickle-down policy--take money from the poor and give it to the rich indiscriminately--is an objectively horrible idea, but I would say also that nobody is seriously arguing for that sort of thing. (Also, I'm have no idea what "GP" stands for.)
  - drdeca 2mo ago
    “GP” in this context is short for “grandparent” or “grandparent post”. It means the comment that they comment they are replying to, is a reply to.
  - nobodyandproud 2mo ago
    Not the OP. But posting from a low-use, 10 month old alt handle (?) doesn't really gesture good faith.
    - manlymuppet 2mo ago
      I agree. If my sentimental promises are not enough, I don't blame you haha. But I hope my pleading is evidence enough anyways. However much this means: I really am being sincere.
  - smallmancontrov 2mo ago
    I'll pick up the conversation if GP won't (GP = grand parent, your post is the parent of mine and the post above is the grandparent of mine). You're missing the forest for the trees. I argue that the forest is a high level strategy that has been playing out for approaching 50 years: 1. Push money into the capital economy and cut taxes. If anyone complains, cite growth. 2. Push taxes into the labor economy and cut benefits. If anyone complains, cite fiscal responsibility. This doesn't necessarily show up to an egregious degree in any individual policy. I can think of a few examples but that's beside the point. If (1) and (2) are aggressively promoted and happen frequently while the invisible (3) and (4) -- capital pays taxes, labor gets benefits -- aren't and don't, then the net effect is intentionally and predictably and observably upwards re-distributive. Furthermore, I don't buy the excuse that policy wonks don't understand this. Back in comparative government class, they taught us that Iran was a theocracy rather than a democracy not because it didn't do the rituals of electing leaders, but because a Council of Religious Experts got to select the candidates. You can have any color you want, as long as it is black (or Shia Muslim). In any case, the filter is the policy. Between campaign finance and private ownership of media, it's no real surprise that in the US we have the policy filtering mechanism that allows (1),(2) and blocks (3),(4). Again, the filter is the policy, the same logic that makes Iran a theocracy shoves the US towards plutocracy, and we need to push back by shifting aggregate legislative attention away from (1), (2) and towards (3), (4) rather than getting bogged down in debates over whether any particular fig-leaf appropriately covers any particular penis.
expedition32 2mo ago
So why all the tax cuts? Sure the GOP are evil bastards who don't believe in it but apparently their voters do.
bediger4000 2mo ago
Maybe they don't believe in "trickle-down economics", they same way the do believe that "CRT and DEI are bad". They certainly believe that lowering tax rates raises revenue collected, that's an article of faith. I've see ex-Congressman Joe Walsh advocate for that viewpoint within the last year.
throw0101a 2mo ago
> No one believes in trickle-down economics. As GP said, it's a pejorative straw man invented by its opponents. Except the folks that implement it: > The cuts were based on model legislation published by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),[8][9][10][11] supported by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer,[12] anti-tax leader Grover Norquist,[13] and the influential industrialists Charles and David Koch.[14][15] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment The term was invented by its opponents, but it was a label that was put on actual policies, like Hoover's: > In 1932, humorist and social commentator Will Rogers wrote a column criticizing Herbert Hoover's policies and approach to The Great Depression and stated: "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot."[11] In 2007, political commentator William J. Bennett credited Rogers for coining the term "trickle down" and observed its persistent use throughout the decades since.[12] And Reagan's: > Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign for the presidency on a platform advocating for supply-side economics. During the 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries, George H. W. Bush had derided Reagan's economic approach as "voodoo economics".[16] Following Reagan's election, the "trickle-down" reached wide circulation with the publication of "The Education of David Stockman", a December 1981 interview of Reagan's incoming Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman, in the magazine Atlantic Monthly. In the interview, Stockman expressed doubts about supply side economics, telling journalist William Greider that the Kemp–Roth Tax Cut was a way to rebrand a tax cut for the top income bracket to make it easier to pass into law.[17] Stockman said that "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[17][18][19] Reagan administration officials including Michael Deaver wanted Stockman to be fired in response to his comments, but he was ultimately kept on in exchange for a private apology.[20] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics It is pejorative, but it is not attacking a straw man, but actual policies that right-wing folks want implemented (and have).

throw0101a 2mo ago

> When half the country has believed something for close to a half a century, across multiple generations, you bet your ass it needs to be debunked. It dates back to the late 1890s (and has been criticized since then): > In 1896, United States Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan claimed in his Cross of Gold speech that his opposition based their policies on the idea that the success of the rich would "leak through" to the lower classes, stating: "There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below."[8][9][10] > In 1932, humorist and social commentator Will Rogers wrote a column criticizing Herbert Hoover's policies and approach to The Great Depression and stated: "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot."[11] In 2007, political commentator William J. Bennett credited Rogers for coining the term "trickle down" and observed its persistent use throughout the decades since.[12] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics so I'm not hopeful it will ever go away.

e40 2mo ago
I had no idea the idea was so old!