I would argue that technology diffusion would occur even without trickle down economics/tax policies. Even if they were taxed more heavily, there would still be people wealthy enough to buy the v1.0 flat screen, computer, DVD player, etc because wealth is still unevenly distributed and there are still some richer people in the population.

Trickle down economics is supposed to make poorer people more wealthy. Not suppress their wage growth while offering a greater selection of affordable gadgets.

▲

ryao 7 days ago | parent [-]

Would it have happened to the same extent? Also, describing these things as gadgets understates the extent to which they are beneficial, given that a gadget refers to a novelty by definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gadget

Among the many things that have become affordable for every day people because money had been present to fund the R&D are air conditioners, refrigerators, microwave ovens, dish washers, washing machines, clothes dryers, etcetera. When I was born in the 80s, my parents had only a refrigerator (and maybe a microwave oven). They could not afford more. Now they have all of these things.

	▲	conductr 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I could ask the same of you. Do these things only exist because of trickle down? Do you have proof they wouldn’t have been invented and commercialized without it? I don’t expect either of us to be able the answer the questions posed. Nobody in the 80s was asking for any of these inventions. People were living their lives happily ignorant to a better future. For that reason, most of these things do amount to just gadgets. They have shaped our lives in a dramatic way and had huge commercial success by solving huge problems or increasing conveniences, but they are still nonessential. That’s the way I’m using the term, don’t really care what Webster has to say about it tbh as I’m perhaps being dramatic precisely to highlight this point. The continuation of R&D isn’t even a trickle down policy. If you’re a big manufacturer of CRT televisions, it’s in your interest to continue inventing better technology in that space just to remain competitive. If you’re really good at it, there’s a good chance you can steal market share. It’s good old fashioned business as usual in a competitive industry. I don’t see how they relate to one another. Not to mention that many things are invented in a garage somewhere and capital is infused later. Would this only happen if the rich uncles of the world benefited from economic policies aimed at making them rich? I think it would still find a way in most cases, good ideas typically always find a way. I don’t think a majority of gadgets can be linked to something like “brought to you by trickle down economics”.