20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’ • Hacker News Board

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#231

Post by mbar84 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #10

Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with. It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that. Go figure, give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. Give a billionaire $20M, s…

The term "trickle-down" was a pejorative from the start, so if you ever have the intent to convince somebody, then you're going to have to start by not using pejoratives as if that's what the opposing side is advocating for. It's like you started calling people f*ktards with a f*ktard-theory and have done so for so long that you've forgotten, that's not how they see themselves. Now you're confused that nobody on the side you call f*ktards is listening to you or taking your arguments seriously.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#232

Post by romwell » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #152

ianai wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it absolutely has been used by politicians and pundits since the 1980s into the present day and you’re the one spreading falsehoods.

It is talked about by its opponents. No one on the right uses the phrase except in response. Try and find some examples

Isn't it great how, once the idiocy of trickle-down has become widely known, one can continue pushing the same ideas by merely calling it something else?

Such a neat trick!

We are not talking about which phrase the Right uses today. The idea of trickle-down is what our current taxes are based on. There's no need to call it anything; obstructionism suffices

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#233

Post by flavius29663 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #183

JackFr wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as the billionaire holds on to whatever financial product they bought forever as long as it appreciates faster than inflation. Another word for that is investment. Where do you think that money goes? You don’t earn returns on money that isn’t doing anything.

>Where do you think that money goes? Offshore. I think that money goes offshore. I even said it in the previous sentence, which you didn't quote. >Another word for that is investment. Well let's entertain the fantasy that the money doesn't flow away into offshore accounts for a second. So you're saying that investing is good? Then instead of giving money to rich people (e.g. by tax cuts), the government should do wha…

Governments are notoriously bad at investments. Rich people will not keep money frozen in offshore accounts forever, to be eaten by inflation. They will invest at some point, and when they do it's going to be much more efficient than whatever the government can do. All the former communist states had the government make all the decisions where the money is invested, and they fell further and further behind in economy. They even had long term plans - 5 years, much better in theory than the quarter to quarter sprints that modern companies have, and it still didn't help.

You could say that once in offshore accounts, money will maybe be invested in other countries rather than domestically. That might be true, but that is a different problem (globalism) rather than trickle down.

There is a picture of Elon Musk on the article. Do you really think a government would have ever been able to create Tesla?

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#234

Post by wilkommen » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #149

romwell wrote: post #10

Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with. It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that. Go figure, give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. Give a billionaire $20M, s…

> as the billionaire holds on to whatever financial product they bought forever as long as it appreciates faster than inflation. Another word for that is investment. Where do you think that money goes? You don’t earn returns on money that isn’t doing anything.

Yes you absolutely do earn returns on money that isn’t doing anything. If I buy a share of Apple and the share price goes up, I’ve just made a return on money that isn’t doing anything. The money I spent on that share didn’t enable any real economic activity other that me buying that share. My money didn’t go to Apple to enable them to grow their business. It went to some other investor who is primarily engaged in the same activity as me - investing.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#235

Post by ChrisLomont » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #183

JackFr wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as the billionaire holds on to whatever financial product they bought forever as long as it appreciates faster than inflation. Another word for that is investment. Where do you think that money goes? You don’t earn returns on money that isn’t doing anything.

>Where do you think that money goes? Offshore. I think that money goes offshore. I even said it in the previous sentence, which you didn't quote. >Another word for that is investment. Well let's entertain the fantasy that the money doesn't flow away into offshore accounts for a second. So you're saying that investing is good? Then instead of giving money to rich people (e.g. by tax cuts), the government should do wha…

>Offshore.

First, what tiny fraction of US money goes offshore versus for US investment? Ridiculously tiny. The total value of US investments dwarfs any offshore boogeyman.

And, offshore isn't a dead end. It invests where it's worthwhile, which, again, is incredibly US based - look at our bond rates and market caps.

>that investing is good

What allows new companies, large and small, to form and employ? What allows small companies to make payroll during slow seasons? What allows people to get college loans, mortgages to help build wealth, people to get loans for things that allow them to create and plan? What allows farmers to farm all year and only sell in a small window?

Oh yeah, investment.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#236

Post by sveme » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:58 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #141

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In any case, the "wealth disparity" discussion is almost always badly anchored. The first thing to understand about wealth disparity is that it maps pretty much to wealth. More wealth, more wealth disparity... almost universally. Many or most people have no wealth, depending on your semantics of "wealth." Therefore, if the value/quantity of wealth rises, wealth disparity rises. I agree with you but it remains a pro…

A major difference now is the majority of those with vast wealth earned it themselves through creating new enterprises. The aristocrats of old received it through birth or politicking. The rich today are far more effective and organizationally superior considering it was those exact skills that made them their wealth.

Most, if not all of the rich entrepreneurs come from wealthy families. If you start rich it is so much easier to spend time on founding companies.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#237

Post by gorbachev » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:58 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #173

masklinn wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trickle down economics is the same kind of error. Is it really an error if what is observed is what was expected is what was desired?

What is observed is more or less the opposite of what its proponents say would be observed.

That's because the proponents don't say the quiet part out loud.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#238

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:58 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #176

UncleMeat wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A manager is a laborer like any other. A CEO being paid a wage is not bad. They are doing labor too. The problem is when people are obtaining a large amount of their wealth through means other than labor.

A CEO is doing very hard labor. It isn't easy figuring out that the future will be and positioning the company to be there. Everyone would like the salary of a CEO, few would actually like that work (it isn't as easy as it sound), and even fewer are good at it. Many companies have failed after a bad CEO took over, or improved greatly when a good one took over. If a good CEO wants millions to do the job they are well…

I don't disagree that a CEO is doing very hard labor. As mentioned, I don't have a fundamental problem with CEOs being paid for the labor, even being paid very large amounts. I do think that there exist overpaid CEOs, in large part because it is very difficult to evaluate a CEO, but that isn't the root of inequality.

The problem is the income generated by their wealth, not the income generated by their labor.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#239

Post by superfunny » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:58 PM UTC

Werewolf255 wrote: post #73

syshum wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I worked as a doctor for 20 years, invested most of my income in that 20 years in to dividend paying stocks, then at age 45 or so retire to live off my dividends that my hard work paid of, I did not earn any of that?

I mean, no? In this specific example, the doctor is buying instruments which derive their interest from exploiting the labor and capital of those in the offering company, and after 20 years, the doctor is just living off others work because he 'earned it'. Plus, of course, in this perfect market scenario, no crashes or corrections can ever occur.

Are the workers slaves? Are they forced to work for the offering company, or do they choose to do so?

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#240

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

jt2190 wrote: post #204

netcan wrote: post #52

In college, I studied Ronald Coase's famous 1920s papers. The major application ATT was infrastructure stuff. Coase's argument was that "given 0 transaction costs," it doesn't matter who owns what property or right. The market will achieve efficient solutions as firms sell each other radio spectrum or whatnot. Policy should focus on minimizing transaction costs and let the market organize itself. Circa 2005, I heard…

Typo: He was pissed [off]. (I don’t usually comment on typos but this one took more than a second for my brain to decipher.)

[deleted]