The Big “trickle-down” Lie
What’s the lie?
That anyone on the right ever advocated it in the first place.
Thomas Sowell’s challenge has gone unanswered all these years:
Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this “trickle-down” theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a “trickle-down” policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.
But that doesn’t stop the left, because it’s such a useful lie for them to tell. And “trickle-down” is so much fun to say.
I admit, I got caught by this among the conversations regarding Reagan’s tax initiatives and the Laffer Curve.
I was surprised and saddened by Sowell’s piece. It just demonstrates the extent to which the Left controls the public conversation.
Thanks.
Bill West:
Sowell has written in a lot more detail about it in one (or perhaps several) of his books. I forget which one, though. Maybe Vision of the Anointed or The Quest for Cosmic Justice?
George H. W. Bush is responsible for part of this: calling Reaganomics “voodoo economics.” Thanks, old man.
It did occur to me recently that the Left is constantly pushing for trickle-down economics — after a U-turn through the Government, of course! The most grossly inefficient, corrupt version of this approach imaginable.
They’re all full of it, and we’re in for it. Went to a conservative forum this week, with some national congress critters (R’s), and they’re already trimming their sails on the amnesty for unregistered Democrats push (as even Jay Leno calls it!).
The left does ‘trickle down’ all the time… they piss down your back and expect you to believe its raining.
I don’t think he qualifies as an economist not in an insane asylum, but Rush Limbaugh went on and on about the beauty of the trickle-down phenomenon in his rambling complaint about Pope Francis a month or two ago. Definitely didn’t render any aid and comfort to the conservative cause with that one. Link.
Also, I’m pretty sure the infamous David Stockman “confessed” that the policies he helped design for the Reagan administration were actually “trickle-down.” Yes, he did say that, more or less. Not an economist, either–BA in history.
The trickle down economy is actually what the Left advocates; it is a command economy. But like rape of boys in the Catholic Church and teacher abuses in the unionized force, they like to put the blame on other people. When it was Leftists and their ideology responsible for such to begin with.
I take it as a given that Sowell is correct in his assertion that no economist has ever used the term to describe an economic model.
That said, this is one of the very few times when, in principle, I somewhat disagree with Sowell or at least find his essay incomplete. The term ‘trickle down’ is an awkward and inadequate attempt to disparage an important and singularly beneficial aspect of capitalism.
In comparing capitalism to socialism, Churchill forthrightly pointed out capitalism’s inherent ‘vice’, the “unequal sharing of blessings”. What few have done is adequately describe the beneficial consequence of capitalism’s “unequal sharing of blessings”. Whether greedy robber baron or saintly philanthropist, capitalism’s “unequal sharing of blessings” viewed from a generational perspective is indeed a case of Reagan’s “a rising tide lifts all boats” , which of course is what ‘trickle down’ inadequately describes.
Capitalism is the ‘engine’ that drives material progress. No other economic system has ever been, even distantly, in the same ‘league’. Unfettered and minimally regulated capitalism is by far and away the greatest driver of material and, informational progress the world has ever seen. Reagan just partially ‘unleashed’ our capitalistic economy and the Soviets were left so far behind that their system collapsed.
Three aspects of Capitalism account for its astonishing performance; firstly, capitalism is a mathematical representation of supply and demand and the mathematical relationships of trade and commerce. Secondly, capitalism most closely aligns with the operative principles of human nature. Thirdly, personal wealth is the fulcrum upon which societal opportunity is leveraged.
Capitalism should be celebrated, not apologized for and, it once correctly was…however it must be understood that capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. It is as amoral as 2+2=4 because capitalism’s basis is mathematical relationships and, 2+2= 4… both for the saint and the homicidal madman.
Capitalism engaged in by individuals who practice traditional judeo/christian moral principles results in philanthropic ‘saints’. Capitalism engaged in by amoral “Gordon Gekko’s” (greed is good) results in ‘Robber Barons’.
A gun is a tool and just like a hammer it can be used to construct or harm, all dependent upon the person wielding that tool. So too with capitalism. What sets capitalism apart is that even when used by the unethical, it results in the formation of the largest middle class of any economic system. It results in both material and civilizational progress. It is far from accidental that the nation that has been the foremost practitioner of capitalism is also the leader by far, in medical research.
Any sailor will confirm that, ‘a rising tide’ does ‘lift all boats’.
I remember being taught in my 8th grade Civics class (circa 1964) that Republicans advocate “trickle down economics”. That phrase has stuck in my mind ever since. Can’t remember any similar shorthand for what the Donks were supposed to have supported.
carl in atlanta:
How about “trickle economics”?
The actual idea that wealth starts with the successful doing successful things is valid.
What is happening here is the conflation of crony-capitalism — even better described as archeo-capitalism — with Individualism.
Never forget that Max created the neologism of Capitalism as a pejorative for the OTHER GUYS — TPTB of his day.
For him, Capitalism meant the crew that had all the ‘beans’… that was in charge of the rule book.
For some crazy reason he never connected their wealth with political-economic control of the ‘system’ — and in the next breath he advocated putting political-economic control into the ‘hands of the people.’
This latter structure would’ve surely needed wise apparats — like himself — no doubt.
In which case, Das Kapital was, and is, an infantile gut pouring of rage against The Man… and how Karl would really Fix Things when he stood as Zeus.
In which case, the impulse to absolutism is right there from Maxist genesis.
It’s appeal to wannabee tyrants is manifest.
===
I can see I’m going to have to publish a corrective theory of human economics that bears a closer resemblance to reality.
For none of the Pop-Econ nostrums out there — especially MMT and Marxism are on target. Neither would survive peer review in the hard sciences. They are THAT bad.
Even Milton Friedman’s notions of commercial bank credit creation are entirely upside down. (See:Keen)
The gold bugs are daft: mankind has actually never used gold as commercial specie — except at the margins. The crazy notion that gold was ‘money number one’ is too daffy to swallow. (You have to throw away all of the historical record.)
We are constantly victimized by truly bizarre notions of how our money economy even got started! Start with the gold bugs and start moving on over.
Even the nature of Individualist-Economics is politically twisted — of which Trickle Down is the straw man now to aim at.
======
I post from time to time on economically oriented blogs.
When doing, I’m in a wilderness of misdirected souls.
Modern education — especially MMT and Marxism nostrums — has entirely done modern discourse in.
====
Commerce is based upon trading. Period. Stop.
It’s based upon differences in perceived needs and values. These change through time, obviously.
What MMT — and Marx failed to see was, and is, that even the currency/ unit of account in a modern economy ITSELF is floating in value — even under a rigid specie standard.
This occurred because, in both instances, the theoreticians were/ are standing at the absolute apex of the world currency hierarchy: the Pound Sterling and the US Dollar.
Like the gravity of a black hole, standing at the center of the currency universe blinds one to the true nature of trading. It leads one to epicentric thinking.
(That what is near and true is also true even far and away. Such is not so in economic affairs, indeed, most affairs of man. Hence the desire to be upon a node/ in a city — and in the capital.)
To understand Individualist-Capitalism one must stand at the extreme periphery — even outside the system. That mental gymnastic has never been done by the pop-econ ‘masters.’
Modern economic theory is as advanced as Chemistry was circa 1733. It’s pitiful.
Neo:
As Rex Harrison might say:
I think you’ve got it!
Supply side economics is taken by dems to be trickle down economics. The problem for them is that Reagan was right. I remember well when Richard Gephardt did an about face and advocated supply side economics when Republicans took control of Congress after running on the Contract with America. Suddenly dems were facing the real possibility of budget cuts to balance the budget, so Reagan’s idea that you can grow the economy, increase tax revenues and shrink the deficit suddenly seemed attractive (after attacking it relentlessly for a decade or longer).
Didn’t Chris Mathews get a trickle down his leg thinking about Obama, or something like that?
First came the thrill, THEN the trickle. Bless his heart.
Must be something to do with Dick Trickle, although I can’t see liberals ever being Nascar fans.