Comment by textor | Hacker News Reader

Comment by textor | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Not trying to invalidate your larger argument, but it's worth noting that there is no such thing as "trickle-down theory"https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/sorry-but-trickle-down.... Never was, never will be. It's a strawman through and through, originating in mockery, amounting to nothing more than "screw the poor" slogan that no self-interested economist could have endorsed. Its only purpose is to ridicule the perfectly valid – and hard – question of optimal tax policy that achieves long-term budget prificit without stifling development of businesses. Hilariously enough, some less than savvy people with conservative inclinations have defended and adopted this strawman as if it was a legitimate model, but this has more to do with meme dynamics than with economic policies.

As for your larger argument, well, this is a just-so model. There are many different ones, in favour of different policies, of course. But, realistically speaking, constant growth of a developed economy was never possible. However well you reduce inequality or deal with automation-related job loss, there are limits to attainable market expansion. Stagnation or, at best, negligible growth are something we need to learn to face.

You cited an article that basically says 'Trickle down doesn't exist, plebs. But hey, trickle down totally works! Here's why!'. What he describes is the policies that people refer to when they say Trickle Down.

Not sure why your getting downvoted. The article largely tries to debunk TD exists because 'no recognised economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal'

TD has been referred plenty, not under than name. You'll find a bunch of economist views (positive and negative) under supply side theories which is often steeped in trickle down theory.

And then the article promotes TD under the logic; "the sequence of payments is directly the opposite of what is assumed by those who talk about a ‘trickle down’ theory. The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all." based on a couple of examples and his loose theory without any real research.

There are plenty of proper studies to the contrary available with an easy google.

This isn't about the number of examples. It's plainly disingenious to say that "TD has been referred plenty, not under that name". Basically, in such way one demands the right to reduce supply side theories – or, in popular practice, to reduce every argument in favor of any taxation rate lower than proposed by the opponent – to a strawman of choice, as if the strawman was the original idea that's "covered up" or "dogwhistled" or whatever. Like this, in extreme:

A: We need to impose 100% tax on the top 10%, to achieve economic growth and lower inequality.

B: This isn't even wrong, this is asinine.

A: Oh, trickle-down much?

Why do this? Naturally, because genuinely debubunking the specific arguments against high tax rates is a lot harder than joking about the bourgeoise that promote TD because of their greed.

I think it's more that, when people sit down and debunk the arguments against high tax rates, the people who believe in supply side economics don't read them. Which in some cases is because they'd rather watch old cowboy movies. In others, it's because they simply don't care. It's an extreme case - but consider what happened to the last accademic economist who tried to use economic arguments against the external imposition of supply side. He was called Yanis Varofakis. They ignored him, the press called him a nut, then they just went ahead with the austerity package.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com