• grandkaiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Has anyone actually ever said that trickle down economics works…? I see people making fun of it all the time, but no one seems to be championing it? Is it just one giant straw man?

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think anybody actually believes it works, but they’ll tell you it does when they give tax breaks to the wealthy “job creators”.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      They do not call it trickle down economics when lobbying. However tax breaks for the rich to increase investment and consumption are extremly common.

  • _bcron@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    And then the big glass grabs a straw and tries to slurp out more defined benefits from the smaller glasses, but they’ve been dry for a while

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Most people who think voting will change anything also think it’s the only way to change anything. So it’s helpful to suggest specific direct action alternatives.

      • deltreed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        True, but it doesn’t work at all. The illusion of representation is finally being exposed so that the masses can see what’s going on. No matter who is voted for and wins, only a two party system will be allowed (that’s who the elite control) and they aren’t letting go of that power. So, until those go away, we eat shit.

        • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Is the problem having two parties or that voting is bad. Because you are argueing voting is bad, due to there only being two parties and that is just not true for a lot of countries. You could for example use proportional representation instead of first past the post in the US, which would allow for more different parties serving more specific groups to be elected. Would you still call for people to not vote in that case?

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    enough bootstrapsing, and one day you too could be the top wine glass! now get back to work, peasant

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It does work, but by trickle, we mean only a trickle. Like a not worthwhile trickle. Not even a roof leak, like condensation on one window

  • logicbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I learned something from this post. Previously, I would have said that trickle down economics doesn’t work at all.

    But that’s not right. It has always worked as intended. Because it was always intended to benefit the rich and increase the wealth gap between them and everybody else.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Sort of. As in most cases it’s a bit more nuanced than that, actually happened is that some economists came up with this totally swell idea, except they didn’t live in the real world and never had, so it didn’t work. Then once the rich upper classes realized how effective it was at giving them lots of money, they maintain the system.

      There wasn’t some grand conspiracy to implement it, all that happened was the rich being opportunistic and taking advantage of a broken system as per usual.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Also what no one ever wants to admit is that this kind of system can only be carried out for so long before it collapses on its own.

    If you start filling a million gallon wine glass on top of a bunch of small glasses, eventually you’ll just crush and destroy everything at the bottom.

    I like to imagine it as constructing a building. We keep building higher and higher, trying our best to place the richest at the very top and ever higher floor. To make it work, we keep taking building material from the foundation to build the penthouse. As the penthouse becomes higher and higher, heavier and more lavish, the foundation becomes thinner, smaller and weaker.

    At one point we’ll have an absolutely beautiful penthouse for a handful of people, resting on a very thin foundation that will eventually fail, fall and destroy everything and everyone.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That is part of the problem, when it collapses it hurts everybody. At least until something new can be set up. So much better to stop making it worse.

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Hurts everyone except for the people at the top. The world is so globalized that they can easily fuck off with their digital money bank and not have to worry about the collapsed house of cards they left.

        • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s the great equalizer of imaginary money … it requires a global system to manage it and make it possible and an entire population of people who believe in it and have faith it, much like a religion of sorts … if the system falters, their money dies with it … if the people lose faith, their wealth disappears as well.

          That and global nuclear war that just sends every digital system no matter how robust back a hundred years and virtually vapourizing a lot of imaginary wealth for a lot of wealthy people.

          In my personal opinion, its the only thing that keeps us from destroying ourselves … they know if they try to take all wealth, theirs will disappear … they also know that if we lose faith in the system, nothing is worth anything any more … they also know that if we all gain a bit of wealth, they lose power over us

          So leaders and wealthy elites have to walk a fine line between fleecing us on a regular basis and giving us just enough to keep holding faith in the system.

          It’s funny when you think about it … imaginary wealth is what caused all these problems … but its also imaginary wealth that is preventing us from destroying ourselves

          It’s like what Homer Simpson famously said about alcohol … “Alcohol the cause of and solution to … all of life’s problems”

          • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            That would be the absolute worst case scenario which I don’t think would happen. Barring world nuclear holocaust they’re pretty immune. Look at the Russian oligarchs, for the most part even with their assets frozen in multiple countries they’re still living in opulence as they have money stored in plenty of countries that don’t hate them. That’s the trick, they’re so rich they cna afford to have multi million dollar piggy banks all over the place.

    • DandomRude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I find this depiction quite fitting, because people are getting crushed under the weight from above on a regular basis - or, to stay with the image a bit better: they break from all this pressure. But the thing is that no one really cares as long as there are enough people left to replace those who are in shambles. It’s a bleak reality, tbh.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    We learned this decades ago through Reaganomics where inequality sudden grew at the fastest pace it ever had in the history of our country at the time.

    Despite this people keep preaching it.

    • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      because you would be suggesting glorious leader ronald reagan the actor is wrong and that is unfathamable

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Now now let’s not pretend that the cup never overflows, it absolutely does. It overflows directly into OTHER disgustingly wealthy individuals pockets too.

    Johnny billionaires might not buy enough for that to spill over to us schmucks, but they buy enormously expensive real estate and furniture, accessories, planes, etc… they keep that money circulating amongst themselves and their ilk.

  • C126@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    They always suggest MORE taxes to fix this and never suggest 0 taxes on middle class and poor. Why do poor and middle class people have to pay property and sales and income and social security tax? It’s ridiculous.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem is that the rich mainly make money from capital. Hence the lack of tax makes them even richer. Just removing taxes for the poor, would collapse government services, which in many ways protect them from the rich, while the rich would still see their wealth and power grow. Welcome to a disaster.

      So tax the rich first, then lower taxes for the poor.

      • C126@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Just getting 30% of our income back from eliminating social security tax would probably help. Those “services” are a scam. My friend works in government. She gets yelled at if she works one minute past 4 and her entire job is to ensure all the money is spent, no matter how frivolously.

      • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        arguably, government services protect the rich from the poor in far more ways than the poor from the rich.

        look at bismarck’s appropriation of mutual aid programs to undercut and poison socialist movements. he talked about this a bit.