Economists have written the same article for years.
This is like that Onion school shooting article that just changes the location except they count how many years it’s been since Reagan
Well, not the same article. They have to find/replace the name every couple years. Horse and sparrow, supply side, trickle down, …
I like horse and sparrow. It openly admits it’s horseshit.
We need to stop shaming people for believing in religion and start shaming them for believing in trickle down.
It_s_the_same_picture.jpg
We have proof that Jesus Christ at least existed and was put to death by a Roman Leader named Pontious Pilate, we have no proof he was actually divine.
This means there is more proof for Christianity than “Give the ravenous gluttons who want for nought more pie and somehow the starving children will be fed.” aka Trickle Down
I mean it’s basically the same thing at this point.
We know, we know.
Because the plan all along is generational theft.
It’s all the generations getting robbed, it’s just that each successive generation gets shafted worse than the one before. Grandma didn’t steal your retirement, the oligarchs did.
It’s by design. But in a serious country, serious world, or amongst serious people, we would’ve been laughing at the “Laffer curve” the moment Laffer ejaculated it into the napkin he first wet dreamed it upon.
But instead because we’re both as laughable as the curve itself and because the rich, industrial asshats in this country were foaming at the mouth for a thin, arguably objective, seemingly mathematical piece of horseshit to cover their “steal from the poor and give to the rich” policy preferences, reproductions of Arthur’s ejaculate was disseminated like it was the fucking Mona Lisa.
It should never be said that conservatives are conservative in the normal, adjective sense of the word. For the last fifty years, they’ve been tearing at the fraying seams of society and have been using “trickle down economics” as their seam ripper, while simultaneously blaming anything and everything other than their objectively horrific policies for the havoc wreaked.
Oh, the laffer curve is just fine. The issue is, the people who choose to missuse it deliberately or through utter ignorance never mention that the X value is about 90%. As I always say to those types whenever they bring it up:
“Theh all want to talk about the laffer curve, right up until you have to explain to them how hight the X value is. Then, as if by magic, they suddenly don’t want to talk about it anymore and never agreed with it in the first place.”
The real problem with economics, imo, is that they always presume inequality to not exist, in order to make the calculations work. The reason being that, if you accept that inequality exists and add it to the pot, as it were, the answer always comes out as “the problem is inequality.”
However, that doesn’t justify tax breaks for the rich or their rampant greed and exploitation. So, we pretend its non-existent and, tbf, in a wold with no inequality what so ever, where only the best rise to the top and anyone could be rich, if they worked for it and it wasn’t a closed shop, most of neoliberalism would be absolute genius.
Of course, the problem is that, in the real world, inequality not only exists but is the definining feature of our economy.
People should be always taxed more depending on how much more they make starting at 500,000$ a year for a single person imo. Once you hit that threshold you’re far above a normal human…far above.
If wages/salary are your primary/only source of income, you are not part of the wealthy class, even if it is $500k. Not even close.
Yeah, the problem being that they get compensated in shares, etc, above that point, meaning they dodge all the income tax anyway.
Indeed, Ronnie was and still is a big POS in my book. The USA should bring the tax brackets from the 1960’s back.
Is this going to be like UBI studies, where the news pretends every one of hundreds of studies is the one that is breaking this news for the first time? My economics professor was taking the piss out of supply side economics over a decade ago.
Endorsement of trickle-down is usually made for the same reason as criticisms of UBI… Conservative voters are ignorant of the concept of elasticity in economics, and their politicians know it.
Not to mention that economics education is even worse than civics education. At best someone who went to college might have gotten a 100 level microeconomics course as part of their degree. But I don’t know of any school that teaches about money beyond maybe how to set a budget. If you’re lucky.
When normal people talk about “the economy” it’s largely based on their own bank account and how they feel other people are doing in comparison to some subjective standard, not anything to do with actual economics. This is why we keep having to raise the debt ceiling and politicians talk about it like it’s getting another credit card.
Some people are either unaware or like being trickled upon. Somehow there still seems to be widespread support for tax cuts to the wealthy. Somehow people seem to remember “tax cut” while either being unaware or not remembering whose taxes were cut. Somehow they already forgot when Warren Buffet made a big deal of his tax rate being lower than his secretary’s and that we should fix that. As recently as this summer I found someone surprised that the Trump tax “cuts” increased my taxes
The goldfish memory of news organizations doesn’t help. If they reported this accurately it would be, “Another Study Confirms Trickle Down Doesn’t Work”
“Trickle-Upon Economics” really does capture the vibe and the reality of the experience.
No. It doesn’t seem to me that the article pretends this one study is breaking any news for the first time. It cites other studies and individuals that have expressed the same idea for a long time. Possibly this is the first rigorous study of the 50 years from 1965 to 2015, I dunno.
This is what’s before the fold. Combined with the headline, most people are not going to come away with the sense that this is a long known thing.
Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will “trickle down” and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.
The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn’t, and then examined their economic outcomes.
When it does get into it below the fold it talks about the pandemic. When it could talk about how we’ve known this for literal decades. (I love the second one. It’s six years after Reagan is elected and written by a pro-trickle down economist whose having to move the goal posts to keep defending it.)
It’s almost like every word a conservative (and neoliberal) says is deception or manipulation.
This cannot be solved peacefully.
I’ll never understand how this image wasn’t ridiculed from the start. I mean if you are talking about “trickling down”, wouldn’t the bottom be the place where the thing that is trickling down collects?
Of course money trickles down, it trickles down from the poor to rich.
It was but everyone was hypnotized by that POS. People who criticized it when I was a kid were considered socialist. It was/is a backward southern town. These days its just another small methville.
Yeah, no shit. Something anyone remotely educated on the topic has known since the policies went into place. The problem isn’t that the information wasn’t there, it’s that no one with enough power to benefit from it is willing to do anything about it.
That just sounds like regular corruption ?
with extra steps
Shocked. I am shocked to the core.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme failed to pay its bagholders. It’s by design.
