This article does such a bad job of criticizing an already-unpopular theory that I found myself defending it. "The evidence is clear," "studies have repeatedly shown," and "analysis showed," would be a lot more convincing if the evidence, studies, and analysis were actually explained. Not to mention that focusing on income inequality doesn't disprove the idea of "a rising tide lifts all ships." It's possible the absolute wealth and standard of living of the poorest might increase while inequality also increases.
Yes, I felt the same way. It felt like Allen Iverson's "Practice' press conference. Just because you repeat your opinion over and over doesn't make for an argument.
"Trickle-down economics" is not any kind of formal economic or political philosophy, it's a pejorative term designed to trivialise free market/laissez-faire economic policies.
It's fair enough to criticise free market/laissez-faire economic policies; they have their limitations and trade-offs, just like every other economic philosophy. But this article doesn't contain any serious economic commentary or insight, it’s a largely empty rant.
> "Trickle-down economics" is not any kind of formal economic or political philosophy, it's a pejorative term designed to trivialise free market/laissez-faire economic policies.
So much simping for neofeudalism. "Trickle down economics" is not a pejorative for basic free market ideals, instead it's an accurate term for corporate welfare where large companies and the rich are showered with cash and tax deductions hoping they'll spend their wealth here.
btw, the real "pejorative" is from GHW Bush: "voodoo economics".
Nothing could be less true of my philsophies and my hoped outcomes for the work I've utterly exhausted myself doing for over a decade.
> the rich are showered with cash
This is the giveaway of your own ideological animus. What does this even mean in any real context?
Even if anybody's true priority was for the rich to be as enriched as possible, any half-sentient politician, economist or rich person knows that the rich can only become richer if ordinary people have enough money to buy stuff from them, so, nobody benefits from impoverishment of the masses. Without that recognition, there's no hope of a sensible discussion about the topic of what economic approach will actually deliver outcomes that are the most efficient and fair.
> the rich can only become richer if ordinary people have enough money to buy stuff from them
Also the rich/corporate simply move countries. They don't need the poor from the US, they'll globalize and get whatever good deals they can wherever they can because of free trade.
Ok, yep, it’s a common trick in these kinds of discussions to link to a vaguely-related article with a directive to “read up” on the topic but without any commentary on how it specifically supports any claims being made. Really it’s just a giveaway that there’s no substantive point being put forward.
Yep, I read the paper too, then spent quite some time Googling various combinations of “commercial paper”, “fed”, “reaganomics”, “trickle down”, and other more tenuous terms, yielding nothing at all of any substance. More fool me I guess.
This article confuses several topics. It lures the reader in with the reasonable proposition that personal tax cuts for Bill Gates and other billionaires does not benefit the poorer class, but ends on the conclusion that high corporates tax rates and business regulation are thus good things. The topics are related in the sense many wealthy people own companies (as do most middle class Americans via stocks and 401K plans), but are distinct. In fact, several lines of economic thought criticize high corporate taxes on equality grounds: corporate taxes are blunt instruments and when they are raised, it’s not the CEO or board who takes the pay cut, it’s the rank and file worker the CEO and board decide to fire.
The article then tries to argue against business deregulation. Certainly there are industries that need more regulation (I.e. better privacy standards would benefit society), but the article makes no specific arguments against dysregulation other than a shallow pejorative association with Ronald Reagan, a politician the author clearly detests.
All in all, this is a poor, confused mess of an article that serves as more of a rant than any sort of analysis.
>They [Republicans] didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. 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. But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands. They saved the big banks, but the little ones went up the flue.
Trickle down economics is music to the ears of the rich. Despite people thinking that everyone's vote weigh the same, the rich has more influence than others, in the form of lobbying, or even through the sheer "legitimacy" that comes with wealth and fame, whether or not it's deserved. E.g. celebrities.
Politicians have more incentive to appeal to the rich and powerful, since those people hold the key to power. The vast majority of the populace are mere sheep who will fall in line.
From the article: *"Proponents promised it would jumpstart the economy and increase tax revenue, even at lower rates. Instead, budget deficits ballooned."
"Increasing tax revenues" and "ballooning budget deficits" are NOT mutually exclusive.
The use of the word "Instead" seems to imply that these things are mutually exclusive.
The system allowed (really still allows) the wealthiest people to keep more of their income every year, year after year. It was always a trickle-up system. All these years after Reagan, we see the level of inequality it created.
I’m not against people being billionaires if they pay a fair share of their wealth in taxes every year. The reality in America is that the tax system is lopsided.
Even in the lowest tax brackets, workers still have to deal with payroll taxes. On the other hand, if your income is derived from investments, you escape payroll taxes __and__ you pay less in capital gains taxes than you would in normal income taxes. In other words, we pay a higher share of our income that we earn from doing actual work than many billionaires do on passive income.
Not to mention all the loopholes tailor-made for billionaires and corporations.
Anyways, regarding the mechanics of trickle-down economics, concentrating more wealth in the hands of the wealthy is, from a morally neutral “let’s just grow our GDP” standpoint, bad for the economy. Folks who already have everything they need/want may, given a few more billion dollars, buy a mega yacht here or make a trip to space there, but most of it will be hoarded away or, worse, used to influence policy so they can rake in more billions. If you spread those billions among the less wealthy, they’re more likely to go out and spend it on necessities, which puts more money in the hands of people who need it, and so on. The faster that money circulates, the more GDP grows.
It’s shocking how many Americans can be persuaded to hand over their hard-earned money and worship the thieves at the same time. As if they’ll somehow be getting that money back.
People like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Taylor Swift became billionaires by creating new products that people benefit from -- increasing consumer surplus. Discouraging such people would make us worse off.
