| |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You just said trick-down wasn't a real thing so how can you say it's different from supply-side? | | |
| ▲ | manlymuppet 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | By "not real" I mean it's not a real policy. They are different in that one is a policy and the other is not. | | |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | how about this - Trickle Down is the implementation of Supply Side theory | | |
| ▲ | manlymuppet 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah I think that's also very inaccurate. Supply-side theory is not about indiscriminately taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bena 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What's the actual difference, because you haven't actually supplied one. You've just said "They're different. One is a thing, and one is a criticism of a thing". So, does the criticism not hold value? Because a large part of "supply-side economics", a term coined in the 70s, is reduction of taxes and regulations. With the idea that that extra capital will then be used to create jobs. And if that is not what's happening, then I don't care about the semantics of whether or not "trickle-down" is the appropriate term of art to be applied here. The core concept of "giving rich people more money spurs job growth" is apparently false. | | |
| ▲ | TitaRusell 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It has worked though. This policy created millions of jobs in China, Cambodja and Mexico. The mistake that Republicans made is thinking that the nobles are loyal to the kingdom instead of their own personal greed. | | |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tilting the scale towards capital is a good idea when capital is the limiting factor on economic growth. A dollar invested rather than consumed brings two dollars in a few years time. Here's the thing: this is only really true in developing economies because, well, they develop. Inevitably, the amount of available capital outgrows the available investment opportunities. Expected rates of return and interest rates fall. At this point, subsidizing capital is every bit as foolish as subsidizing demand in any other ~fixed supply market. However, the enormous incentive to pretend otherwise remains. Foolish: policies that favor capital are good Smart: let's check interest rates to see if policies that favor capital are good |
|
| |
| ▲ | odo1242 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean, one is a name of a policy used by supporters, and the other is another name of the same policy used by critics? Name an actual difference? | | |
| ▲ | manlymuppet 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | One is a policy. The other is not a policy. I can name you differences, but it's like comparing apples and oranges. | | |
| ▲ | j16sdiz 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You are basically saying you can tell us, but you won't. If you are not going to tell us anything, why are you teasing us as if you will? Holding back discussion points is not a way to advance a discussion | | |
| ▲ | manlymuppet 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are right. I should be more forthright; I was answering elsewhere. Here's another comment I made that's relevant. """ I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax. Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give tax breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right? But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much. You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented. """ | | |
| ▲ | dec0dedab0de 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Next time start with this level of nuance. Flippantly arguing semantics about controversial issues is not the way. | | |
| ▲ | manlymuppet 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It really isn't semantics. How do you compare a criticism, with a policy? Trickle-down economics doesn't have any legislative appropriations. It's not taught in economics classes. Like saying "what's the difference between a boat and a car?" I can tell you that a boat is not a car, but I can't compare the wheels of a car with a boat, nor the keel of a boat with a car. They are different things is all I'm trying to say. Now as for why I didn't expand with nuance earlier, in my defense I was expanding, but elsewhere in the thread. I foolishly thought this was enough. |
| |
| ▲ | odo1242 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I see, interesting. | |
| ▲ | bena 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is only true if you look at the standard tax rate. The effective tax rate of a lot of US corporations is appreciably lower. It works in places like Scandinavia because they don't give corporations ways to lower their tax burden | | |
| ▲ | manlymuppet 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | My point still stands though. Taxing income and consumption directly (hopefully the income/consumption of rich people) is preferable to indirect corporate taxes. In other conversation though, am I curious to know where you got your data. As far as I'm aware the Scandinavian countries do in fact have a robust system of corporate tax incentives. This is part of the reason they boast such high productivity. I very well might be wrong here though, and the topic is interesting. Would you care to share a source? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | odo1242 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can't call "trickle-down economics" a strawman without actually naming what is different between it and "supply-side economics". Otherwise I have to assume that people are just calling the same policy by two different names. Like how proponents of DRM call it "Digital Rights Management" and critics call it "Digital Restrictions Management" but both people are referring to the same technology. tl;dr: If you could name me differences you would name me differences | | |
| ▲ | manlymuppet 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | My above comment helps with the distinction. If you missed it: """ I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax. Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right? But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much. You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented. """ |
| |
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | bena 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Name one that is not "one's a policy and the other is not". |
|
| |
| ▲ | jibal 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I don't know regex You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it. Your comments are incoherent and disingenuous. Saying that trickle down economics is "an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics" is very much saying that they refer to the same thing ... and it's the thing they refer to that TFA argues only helps the rich. You say that "the policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible" but you offer no defense, and no rebuttal to TFA. > For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it's the name of a common criticism for an argument he made. This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing. I have a thing about people who act in bad faith, or argue so ineptly that it looks like it ... I won't be responding further. | | |
| ▲ | manlymuppet 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it. I figured the syntax was like an either-or thing, but I wasn't sure. > Saying that trickle down economics is 'an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics' is very much saying that they refer to the same thing... I don't think it is. What I'm _not_ trying to say is that trickle-down economics is a nickname for supply-side economics. More, trickle-down economics is a strawman. Not the same thing or a different name, but an inaccurate version--a caricature which doesn't even resemble policy. Also I'm not sure what "TFA" stands for. > This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing. It was kind of rough. Regardless of the incompetence of my arguments though, I promise I am not being intentionally dense. I really do try to act in good faith here on HN, and I'd appreciate it if I could hear more of your perspective and continue this civilly. |
|
|
