[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

There is no such thing as "Trickle Down Economics". That is a term that was first uttered by David Stockman and then co-opted by Reagan's political detractors to criticize Reagan's application of supply-side theory.

Here's the thing:

You should have simply claimed this was a scam started by Grandpa Reagan.

The IMF Confirms That 'Trickle-Down' Economics Is, Indeed, a Joke
Like, an actual joke.


"Trickle-down" economics began as a joke. Seriously.

If there’s one person most often associated with the origins of of trickle-down economics, it’s President Ronald Reagan. Few people know, however, that the phrase was actually coined by American humorist Will Rogers, who mocked President Herbert Hoover’s Depression-era recovery efforts, saying that "money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy."

Rogers’ joke became economic dogma within two generations, thanks in large part to Reagan. At the center of Reagan’s economic doctrine was the idea that economic gains primarily benefiting the wealthy—investors, businesses, entrepreneurs, and the like—will "trickle-down" to poorer members of society, creating new opportunities for the economically disadvantaged to attain a better standard of living. Prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for all, the logic goes, so let’s hurry up with those tax cuts already. The legacy of Reaganomics continues to shape modern debates over macroeconomic policy in the United States, from the Bush tax cuts of the mid-2000s to the deficit hawks waging war over the federal budget in Congress.

Now, nearly 80 years later, Rogers’ quip is getting the punchline it deserves: A devastating new report from the International Monetary Fund has declared the idea of "trickle-down" economics to be as much a joke as he'd imagined.
Increasing the income share to the bottom 20 percent of citizens by a mere one percent results in a 0.38 percentage point jump in GDP growth.

The IMF report, authored by five economists, presents a scathing rejection of the trickle-down approach, arguing that the monetary philosophy has been used as a justification for growing income inequality over the past several decades. "Income distribution matters for growth," they write. "Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent increases, then GDP growth actually declined over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down."

https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-...-indeed-a-joke

What Is Trickle-Down Economics?

Trickle-down economics refers to any policy in which wealthy people and corporations receive tax cuts, stimulus, or deregulation in an effort to boost growth for the entire economy.

Also known as supply-side economics, trickle-down economics got its colloquial name from early twentieth-century humorist Will Rogers. Advocates believe it unfetters the free market to produce prosperity, while critics think of it as a cynical ploy to line the pockets of the rich while making empty promises to lower-income earners.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles...kW67ZhKc002swK

And since I am an equal opportunity guy.

There is No Such Thing as Trickle-Down Economics
The point is not to transfer wealth up and down but rather to create universal opportunity.

Critics of liberalism and the market economy have made a long-standing habit of inventing terms we would never use to describe ourselves. The most common of these is “neo-liberal” or “neo-liberalism,” which appears to mean whatever the critics wish it to mean to describe ideas they don’t like. To the extent the terms have clear definitions, they certainly don’t align with the actual views of defenders of markets and liberal society.

Trickle Down

Economists have never used that term to describe their views.

Another related term is “trickle-down economics.” People who argue for tax cuts, less government spending, and more freedom for people to produce and trade what they think is valuable are often accused of supporting something called “trickle-down economics.” It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to rich people, the wealth they acquire will (somehow) ‘trickle down’ to the poor.”

The problem with this term is that, as far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views. Critics of the market should take up the challenge of finding an economist who argues something like “giving things to group A is a good idea because they will then trickle down to group B.” I submit they will fail in finding one because such a person does not exist. Plus, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the whole argument is silly: why not just give whatever the things are to group B directly and eliminate the middleman?

There’s no economic argument that claims that policies that themselves only benefit the wealthy directly will somehow “trickle down” to the poor. Transferring wealth to the rich, or even tax cuts that only apply to them, are not policies that are going to benefit the poor, or certainly not in any notable way. Defenders of markets are certainly not going to support direct transfers or subsidies to the rich in any case. That’s precisely the sort of crony capitalism that true liberals reject.

https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no...own-economics/

So in the end, Supply side economics is giving tax cuts to the rich and hope it trickles down to the poor. And if its anything like the Bush2 recovery plan, money simply vanishes. At least in the Canadian system, one has to actually provide employment to get the incentives, here in the US its simply a scam to buy private jest and vacation homes. Disclaimer: I had to pay off our second home with a 25 yr mortgage.