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