The Understanding Project
  • Logic
  • About
  • Author
  • Books

What is Trickle-Down Economics?

11/13/2012

 
Some people hate trickle-down economics. They speak of its “failure,” its “victims,” and they claim that it “doesn’t work.” On the other hand, some people like and endorse it. Before we get into the arguments for and against it, the question is: what is it?
My first exposure to the term came from reading those who endorse it and cast it in a positive light. They define it as the phenomenon that occurs when those of high productivity (which corresponds to income) are able to keep more of their earnings, passing on the benefits to those with less productivity (at least individually, not necessarily in aggregate). In other words, when “the boss” has more money to dispose, everybody gets a raise (especially when the boss’s competitors are giving out raises and he/she wants to retain employees). Benefits may not always take the form of higher wages, of course; they may also come in the form of lowered prices, increased hiring, or greater spending by “the boss” that ends up putting money in some other boss’s pocket, spreading the wealth around, eventually helping everyone.

Some rightly point out that “the boss” makes his money from the consumption of others, and so stimulating consumption (or removing anything that might be holding consumption back) also stimulates the economy and should result in increased wages, lower prices, or both. However, there are at least two problems with doing it this way. One is that increased consumption means increased demand, which will tend to raise prices, partly negating the effects. The other problem is that this indirect route is less efficient. Not all consumers are created equal. Some people are better at spending their money than others – at least in ways that will stimulate the economy as a whole. Some people are more productive than others, and productivity is equal to income (the value of one’s goods or services can be defined no other way than by the amount someone is willing to pay for them). One who makes a lot of money must have generated something of value for so many to pay them so much for it (unless of course there is fraud or force involved), so those with money (generally) must be producing something of value to people.

Of course, when “the boss” has “more money” is relative. More money than when? Since it is always possible for there to be more of a drain on the economy than there is, all economics is trickle-down economics. It is a redundant term. No matter how much of a drain there is on the economy, as long as some economic activity remains, and as long as somebody is receiving wages from someone else, there is trickle-down occurring. All economics is naturally trickle-down, because left alone, the markets reward those with the greatest productivity the most, and they (through the market and in conjunction with those of moderate productivity) can then reward everyone else. No matter how much a society might deviate from this through forced redistribution of wealth, some trickle-down activity (economic activity) will remain. All economics is free-market capitalism; it’s only a matter of how much there is. Even communistic, command-economies with much central planning experience some trade, whether it happens informally when the state isn’t looking, or whether it happens through the commands of the state. Government spending is still spending – but never by those who know best. One would have to be near-omniscient to predict what the people of the market will set as a value for any particular item. It isn’t that government doesn’t work at all; it’s that the free market works better, and history seems to suggest that socialist economies grow slower.

So, I get confused when I hear the claim that trickle-down economics hasn’t worked. That’s ridiculous; it’s the only thing that has ever worked. Where did all the wealth we have come from if not from trade? When people criticize trickle-down, what they seem to be criticizing is a relatively high level of trickle-down – that is, a high level of growth, preferring instead a relatively high level of central planning and retarded growth. Is it a relative term to them? Do they truly think it better to take away funds and hinder those doing good for the economy and give those funds to those who are less efficient and less competitive? I suspect, instead, that they do not even understand the term as I do and are in fact speaking of something else entirely. We are speaking different languages.

What is trickle-down economics to you?

Comments are closed.

    Author

    Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.

    Archives

    November 2019
    April 2019
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    May 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Al Gore
    Anarchy
    Animals
    Ann Coulter
    Anti-Semitism
    Approval Rate
    Barack Obama
    Bias
    Bill Clinton
    Budget Deficit
    Bush Bashing
    Bush-Bashing
    Bush-bashing
    Capitalism
    Center
    Christmas
    Civility
    Code Words
    Coffee Parties
    Collectivism
    Compromise
    Conservative
    Constitution
    Court Rulings
    Culture
    Debate
    Democrats
    Dick Cheney
    Discrimination
    Donald Trump
    Drew Weston
    Economy
    Education
    Environment
    Eric Holder
    Euthanasia
    Experience
    Flag Burning
    France
    George W Bush
    Glenn Beck
    Global Warming
    Health Care
    Hillary Clinton
    Historical Narrative
    Holiday
    Homosexual
    Huffington Post
    Humor
    Hypocrisy
    Immigration
    Independent
    Insult
    Insurance
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jared Loughner
    Jimmy Buffet
    John Kerry
    John Mccain
    Jon Stewart
    Joseph Stark
    Journalism
    Judith Curry
    Julian Assange
    Koran
    Liberal
    Libya
    Marginalization
    Marketing
    Marriage
    Media
    Memes
    Mike Huckabee
    Military
    Mit Romney
    Monopoly
    National Debt
    Occupy Wall Street
    Osama Bin Laden
    Partisanship
    Political Spectrum
    Pragmatism
    Prejudice
    Privacy
    Psychology
    Rachel Maddow
    Racism
    Recession
    Religion
    Republicans
    Rights
    Rush Limbaugh
    Sarah Palin
    Sean Hannity
    Semantics
    Sex
    Sexism
    Socialism
    Sources
    State Rights
    State Secrets
    Stephen Colbert
    Suicide
    Taxes
    Tea Parties
    Term Limits
    Theory
    Tom Tancredo
    Torture
    Unions
    Van Jones
    Wikileaks

    RSS Feed

Please check out my books!

  • Logic
  • About
  • Author
  • Books