What do you all think of the recent trickle-down economics bashing?

Speaking on the Senate floor in 1992, Sen. Hank Brown said, "Mr. President, the trickle-down theory attributed to the Republican Party has never been articulated by President Reagan and has never been articulated by President Bush and has never been advocated by either one of them. One might argue whether trickle down makes any sense or not. To attribute to people who have advocated the opposite in policies is not only inaccurate but poisons the debate on public issues."[21]

Thomas Sowell claimed that, despite its political prominence, no trickle-down theory has ever existed among economists.[22] In response, many critics referred him to Stockman's remarks to Greider. Sowell replied in his newspaper columns.[23] Stockman himself had not proposed or advocated the alleged theory, so Sowell rejected him as an example of someone who had done so. Additionally, Stockman had not specifically named anyone who, or quoted a source that, advocated the theory although he did claim that the theory was being adhered to by the Reagan administration. Sowell replied that Stockman "was not even among the first thousand people to make that claim" but that "not one of those who made the claim could provide a single quote from anybody who had advocated a 'trickle-down theory.'"[22]

econ 101 wrote:

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement.

The Pope is not describing trickle-down economics - he is clearly fallible.

I also question his definition of "justice".

And to boot, it is a ridiculous theory that supporters of the wealthy use to help them sleep at night.

Basically: the rich can enjoy their mansions, boats, cars, etc. and all us peasant can run around like birds hoping for a few crumbs. It really is this insulting.

If you want to justify the accumulation of wealth (aside from the tremendous products/services/goods that we enjoy), I think you go at it from the angle of the projects and initiatives that an individual/group can undertake when they have 'excess' wealth. Recent examples would include: Elon Musk, Bill & Melinda, and other rich philanthropists/developers.

When wealth is accumulated you get skyscrapers, museums, and hospital wings. When wealth is unjustly-dispersed you get nail salons, lottery tickets, and tricked-out cars.

I finished my phd in econ last year and I have never seen the phrase 'trickle-down' in an economics paper, nor do I know exactly what it means.

phd wrote:

I finished my phd in econ last year and I have never seen the phrase 'trickle-down' in an economics paper, nor do I know exactly what it means.

Other than bar-backing on the weekends, what are you doing with that degree and how much are you in debt?

You know things aren't going well when you're trying to run away from your own theory.

Nice statement. Its about time we have some moral guidance on this issue. There might be some hope for organized religion yet.

The poor have never had it better than they do right now. World poverty is at all-time lows right now due to globalization (it has been cut IN HALF in the last 40 years).

In America, despite the Left continuously claiming that the middle class is being destroyed, there is one interesting phenominom taking place- the upper middle class has grown to the largest it has ever been. Is is bad?

Poverty will never be completely eliminated. Remember the stated goals of the Great Society? How'd that work out? What actually happened? Mmm hmm.

Pre-Econ 101 wrote:

The poor have never had it better than they do right now. World poverty is at all-time lows right now due to globalization (it has been cut IN HALF in the last 40 years).

In America, despite the Left continuously claiming that the middle class is being destroyed, there is one interesting phenominom taking place- the upper middle class has grown to the largest it has ever been. Is is bad?

Poverty will never be completely eliminated. Remember the stated goals of the Great Society? How'd that work out? What actually happened? Mmm hmm.

I second this. When I say stuff like this to my social worker friends they say something stupid like: "let's keep it that way" or "tell that to [insert blah blah story about some disenfranchised kid]".

No one who understands laissez-faire capitalism acknowledges the phrase "trickle down," which plays right into the hands of anti-capitalists. The people who hate capitalism the most want its advocates to get stuck using that concept.

The left ought to be thoroughly embarrassed that the world's most visible advocate of religion (and the boss of the world's biggest haven for child molesters) agrees with their economics.

Yeah, and I never called it Obamacare because I don't care, b1tches.

ha ha ha wrote:

You know things aren't going well when you're trying to run away from your own theory.

Yes, I know Reagan never called it trickle down economics. That was the media that done it. But liberal mothaf*ckas don't know the truth.

Trickle Down Econ looks good on paper but then again, so does Communism.

runn wrote:

Trickle Down Econ looks good on paper

It couldn't look good on paper because it isn't on paper. It's not even a theory.

supply side economics = trickle down

phd wrote:

I finished my phd in econ last year and I have never seen the phrase 'trickle-down' in an economics paper, nor do I know exactly what it means.

cra[p;a detse wrote:

supply side economics = trickle down

I was just going to say that.

Supply side economics is BS. Gotta make things a LITTLE favorable for people to want to start businesses, but we don't need to bend over and grab our ankles for them.

It is HILARIOUS that The Pope dislikes trick down economics when his entire religion is built on trick down salvation. In Catholicism the lowly church goer cant communicate with god, you have to go through priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes to get you message across, and vise versa.

What a complete idiot.

Can't all just agree that some regulation is needed and then have our discussions as to where to set the slider on the scale?

Would anyone, for instance, argue that the wars, rapes, abductions of children to serve as soldiers in Congo, funded by illegal mining of semi precious metals is a good thing? Can anyone argue that the murders, abductions, and extortions by the Mexican drug cartels is a good thing? Those are the extreme examples of free market capitalism and the whole world rejects them. In those places, government influence has already drowned in its bathtub.

So please, lets all pretend to be rational human beings for just a moment and acknowledge that, while capitalism has done more to create wealth than any other economic system in the past, capitalism also needs some guidelines. Even Adam Smith wrote that capitalism needs to operate within the rule of law. So instead of simply making inane statements about government getting out of peoples way, drowning in a pool of its own vomit, or whatever talking points are thrown out by the right, let's have some argument from the right on how to maximize efficiency in the system while leaving in place the safeguards that we've already built in.

800 dude wrote:

runn wrote:

Trickle Down Econ looks good on paper

It couldn't look good on paper because it isn't on paper. It's not even a theory.

Way back a long time ago I had a conservative, right winger show me trickle down ON PAPER.

He almost had me convinced.

As I said, it's like Communism, looks good on paper.

Who here is saying we don't need ANY regulation?