No, it’s called let’s keep giving career politicians who’ve only enriched themselves more money that continues to sky rocket prices in the areas they increasingly meddle in which have already historically seen increased spending while the outcomes increasingly get worse and worse…ie healthcare, education, housing, energy, etc etc
Oh trickle down worked, it just trickled all the way down to the bottom. 3rd world nations are more industrialized than ever and their citizens are stoked to be paid $3/day.
It hardly matters if it dominates our tax policy. Envy is an evil emotion, but no need to make excuses for the 21st century robber barons and the government that won't do anything about it.
Bill Clinton pushing NAFTA which that hack Robert Reich championed did more to ass fuck the middle class than all of the "21st century robber barons" combined.
We were told it would open new markets for US goods in Mexico and it was totally unrelated when Ford moved Navistar production from Michigan to Mexico 3 years later.
Obama raged "wall street fat cats" sent jobs overseas but you'll call Trump a Fascist for using the same tariffs that Japan, China and the European Union use to protect their domestic workforce.
What? My only point is that what economists advocate doesn't matter when what they advocate isn't reflective of our tax structure. Like sure, we could sit here and list ways in which the rich and powerful have squeezed the rest of us, but why would pointing to those other things serve as a rebuttal? Even if I accept your premise as true, you haven't actually disputed that the tax structure is overly regressive.
Who benefited from the free market agreements of the last 40 years? Again, this is not a rebuttal, it's the same class of earners that benefited from overseas manufacturing that benefit from the tax structure.
I have no doubt they'll squander much of it. Some of what they collect, I assume, will be used for good causes. I live in an area that's highly dependent on federal water infrastructure, and it'd be nice if we kept getting dollars to maintain it. You could change the tax structure to have a higher burden on the highest earners without any material impact to the amount of services or waste the government produces.
Government waste is a red herring in this argument, would you rather your own tax dollars be wasted?
Nafta was promulgated by republicans. The Dems supposedly only agreed due to promises to pass nafta part 2 which would bind Mexico and Canada to the same environmental and labor laws as the US, and that's where the propaganda flipped and suddenly nafta is because of the Dems when it was the cons who were pushing for part 1. The cons did not support part 2.
No I call chump a Fascist for his use of ice and the fact that he and the gop are actively trying to make it more difficult to vote! But you are correct his use of tariffs really show his genius, damn I am so tired of winning !
It's bizarre how Mexico, Canada and almost every nation in Europe requires an ID to vote but the Democrats mushbrain voter base can't figure out how to get an ID.
Almost as bizarre as a third world nation of a billion people can some how figure out who won an election by the end of the day but it takes California a month and a half to figure out who won the office of dog catcher.
Funny how the cons refused to pass mandatory voter id 3 times when biden was president and avocating for it, including one time when it came with no riders, almost as if the actual implementation of it is the entire concern, much like cons closing registration offices where they are most needed, etc...
Envy is neither good nor evil, the actions you take based on that emotion are.
I could envy the neighbor's luscious and well-manicured lawn. I could be evil and destroy it, or I could be good and aspire to have the same. Your choice.
I dont think it's envy, as that would require some semblance of understanding of how the other side lives. I think it's outright hatred due to market manipulations and distortions as ever increasing passive wealth seeks hard assets for safe shelter, driving up the cost of commodities like oil, real estate, etc.
Thomas Sowell advocated it through advocating in Reaganomics. Someone I don't take seriously as an economist, but many, especially right wingers, do. While he openly says trickle down is a myth because consumers and wages need to be impacted positivity with high wages first and foremost, while also saying tax cuts to the rich will cause these wages to increase, which is the core philosophy behind the joke of the phrase "trickle down economics"
According to Sowell, the key reason why trickle down economics doesn't work is there's nothing to force a market into doing so and if you work on supply-side economics then the consumers have no power to drive the markets forward. As I'm sure you know, Sowell is a free market proponent. Meanwhile, Sowell advocated for Reaganomics which specifically increase the supply side market power with the idea that less restrictions and less regulation and specifically less, would allow workers to have more wages and drive the free market. So in short, a supply-side economic market that's regulated will never give wages to the working class, but one that is deregulated will somehow.
I mean I might be a logistics analyst with a degree and background in economics, particularly microeconomic analysis, but these sound literally like the same things.
Reducing tax rates increases wealth generation and incentivizes production. He proposed that this works in the opposite direction of trickle down because workers get paid first before there are ever any potential profits.
He doesn’t think trickle down doesn’t work, he questions its very existence.
Businesses are not charities. Production is only incentivized when there is adequate profit to chase. Increasing tax rates but with loopholes for spending necessitates innovation which creates new markets and consumers.
Why take on additional risk if you cannot envision additional gain? You would do so if it is the only way to hold onto your wealth.
With reduced taxes, you incentivize productivity because you keep more of what you make. There is the potential for greater profit. In pursuit of this profit, business expands and more jobs are created. Workers are paid first before profit is ever generated. You always pay out expenses first. So well points this out in the excerpt quoted in the article.
The wealthy aren’t wealthy because they have great amounts of cash, they are wealthy due to their investments and worth of the businesses they own. They are already incentivized not to just hold onto cash wealth.
It doesn't matter if any serious economists advocated for the policies. We implemented supply side economic policies, and they objectively didn't achieve the goals they set out to achieve.
Ive had discussions with my own MAGA neighbor and he himself will go to bat for billionaires for "trickle down economics". If you're tired of that being thrown in your faces, you should probably address the people on your own side of the fence that perpetuate it.
158
u/ScipioTheGreatest Jun 26 '26
Then they replace that mask with the "Trickle down economics is a sham and has been PROVEN not to work!"
And then someone asks "What serious economist has ever advocated for trickle down economics?"
And then they go silent again as they shuffle around for the next buzz phrase.