If you are asking this seriously, trickle-down economics is an absurd nonsense theory, there are no examples of it.
Also, money changing hands is not what creates wealth, and those security details would be just an artificially maintained middle-class that can never be large.
[…] trickle-down economics is an absurd nonsense theory […]
Would you mind defining exactly what you mean by “trickle down economics”?
If it had a definition, it wouldn’t be nonsense, would it?
“Trickle down economics” is a rhetoric instrument by which people try to convince the public that taxing poor people and fiscally spending in rich people will increase the poor people’s quality of life.
If it had a definition, it wouldn’t be nonsense, would it?
It would depend on the definition in question. The term in a vacuum is just a collection of words — what those words mean is rather important, imo.
Well, ok, turns out I wrote a definition of the next line.
It’s a nonsensical economical theory, with no definition on the context of economics.
[…] It’s a nonsensical economical theory, with no definition on the context of economics.
Hrm, if it has no definition in the context of economics, how could you know argue that, by its definition, it is a nonsensical economic theory? That seems to fail modus ponens.
[…] no definition on the context of economics.
Do you mean that, in your opinion, it has definitions in other contexts? If so, what would it be, and what would the contexts be?
I see it more as the absurdity of capitalism.
We have people starving on the streets, people unable to afford healthcare, yet the jobs the self-proclaimed “efficiency” of capitalism creates, is labour intended to protect the people who caused these problems in the first place, not labour intended to help the people who face these problems.
They’ll pay you peanuts to protect their gold. The only gold trickling down is a shower
Rich people spending some money is not trickle-down economics.
Trickle down economics is the lie that centralising capital in the hands of the few benefits everyone due to their increased ability to invest their capital.
What happens is they spend a small amount of their fortune in self-serving pursuits (e.g. their security in this scenario) and then they hoard the vast majority of what’s left. The incentive structure of capitalism means a capitalist benefits more from holding capital than distributing it.
The system is broken by design and cannot be fixed without replacing it
Trickle down is more lying by omission. Wealth trickles down, but at the same time flows up through various means so it’s a net negative for the poor, thus concentrating wealth on the hands of the few.
No because 1) that thing doesn’t exist and 2) nothing of value is created out of it.
It’s like paying one team to dig holes during the day, and another to fill them up during the night.
- [Trickle Down Economics] doesn’t exist and 2) nothing of value is created out of it.
How exactly are you defining trickle down economics?
I’m not, what do you think it is?
[…] what do you think it is?
Note that your shifting of the burden of proof is not a sound argument for the veracity of your claims. At any rate, imo, exactly what it means depends on the context; however, it’s generally accepted as the theory that certain economic policies favoring those on the upper tier of the economic spectrum will trickle down to benefit the masses [1][2].
References
- “Trickle-down economics”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-01T17:10. Accessed: 2024-12-10T03:39Z. .
- ¶1
Trickle-down economics is a pejorative term for government economic policies deemed to disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum (wealthy individuals and large corporations) under the belief that this will eventually benefit the economy as a whole. […]
- ¶1
- “Trickle-Down Economics: Theory, Policies, and Critique”. By: “Will Kenton”. Published: 2024-11-09. Accessed: 2024-12-10T03:42Z. .
- ¶1
Trickle-down economics and its policies employ the theory that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down and eventually benefit everyone.
- ¶1
- “Trickle-down economics”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-01T17:10. Accessed: 2024-12-10T03:39Z. .
I’m not […]
What do you mean? Are you saying that you don’t have a definition for the term that you are using?
No u
There is no such thing as trickle down economics. The key part of that false hood is the trick part.
There is no such thing as trickle down economics.
How exactly are you defining trickle down economics?
Up voted for the dark humor but sincerely it’s Feudalism. A central state nor laws cannot be relied on for order nor process so those with the means purchase or are anointed with safety and power.
“If kings and nobles feel like they need to start paying for large retinues of soldiers, would that be an example of trickle down economics?”
deleted by creator
They’re going to outsource that to AI-robots soon. And then I hope they malfunction.
Oh that would be a neat challenge.
AI security guards (which I can only imagine look like Daleks from Dr Who) vs the public. How long before they just outright massacre a crowd?
Or, better yet, what happens when people start using drones as flying pipe bombs and the robots can’t even aim at it.
Ooooh or better yet, we can create devices that create a distraction for the AI robots.
Or, since I am pretty sure they’d be using some wireless connection of some sort, bring a signal jammer and just push em over.
Maybe, but not much of one. Honestly anyone supporting or protecting them is almost as bad as being them. Some technical terms would be sheltering, aiding, and abetting.
We won’t see trickle down economics unless rich people trickle down piss down their trousers out of fear.
How exactly are you defining “trickle down economics”? It has been my experience that a lot of people use that term differently.
