Comments on: Refuted economic doctrines #5: Trickle down

By: David Gamble

David Gamble — Sun, 10 May 2009 19:36:51 +0000

Dear Mr. Quiggin, Can you refer me to some web address where I can get a complete set of your nine economic doctrines refuted? I can find 5 and 9. You could email them to me as well, at gambledg@comcast.net. Thanks, David

By: nanks

nanks — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:15:59 +0000

oops that got stuck in the wrong place, please delete JQ or avert the eyes gentle reader

By: nanks

nanks — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:15:13 +0000

The next issue then is what about children who are neglected – or more generally, how do you ensure equal access to resources for children – who are obviously not in a position to guarantee that for themselves.
Similarly for people with profound disabilities – how do you ensure decent opportunity for people with disabilities? Similarly, how do you ensure decent medical treatment for children born with correctable disabling conditions but whose parents lack the resources to have the problem corrected.
There is an obvious history here with hip dysplasia which is simply corrected in most cases where resourcing is available.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:39:16 +0000

It’s true that luxury items create jobs. But so does school construction, mass transit and healthcare.

By: Links: February 2009 « Consider the Evidence

Links: February 2009 « Consider the Evidence — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:49:57 +0000

[...] Refuted economic doctrines: trickle-down, by John Quiggin [...]

By: Linkkejä kun ei muuta ehdi « Ajatuksia ensimmäisestä maailmasta

Linkkejä kun ei muuta ehdi « Ajatuksia ensimmäisestä maailmasta — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:24:28 +0000

[...] Refuted economic doctrines #5: Trickle down – valuuko ne eurot sittenkään rikkailta köyhille? [...]

By: AntagonistPrime

AntagonistPrime — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:31:00 +0000

Another way of looking at it would be to ask how much would Warren Buffet have to spend in order for the Trickle Down theory to make sense?

When you have $62 billion in spare change simply buying the odd yacht just won’t cut it, for that you would have to “…buy a private jet, pack it full of rare breed poodles and smash it into the side of a mountain. Every. Single. Day.”

Even then he would have change left over

http://rebroadcast.blogspot.com/2009/02/only-thing-that-trickles-down-from-rich.html

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:05:34 +0000

Another good refutation of this is from Dollars & Sense Magazine:

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0704miller.html

By: jquiggin

jquiggin — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 08:33:36 +0000

Andrew, as a relatively new commenter, you’ve obviously missed lots of previous posts. I wrote about Laffer here
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2004/06/10/sinclair-davidson-rediscovers-the-laffer-hypothesis/
As you say, it’s not rocket science.

Try Googling Quiggin+topic or use the search facility here and you’ll often find something

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 08:15:22 +0000

Ok, so “trickle-down” is a framework for analysing economic theories. Fine. But doesn’t that leave you with the problem of “projection” – imparting meaning, substance or intent to theories or policy proscriptions, that are not implied or intended (or fully so) by their authors? Or less formally, won’t the trickle-down framework result in a tendency to see and hear what you want or expect to see?

Why not deal with the economics directly? – its not like the Laffer Curve is Rocket Science!

So the neoliberals tried but failed to stop the growth of the public sector, owing (as you believe) to the natural tendency towards bigger government. Does this tendency have a natural limit? Does this tendency include the push in the United States for higher home ownership levels (“the ownership society”), via the strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act and pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to extend their purchasing of morgage securities, particularly of sub-prime and Alt-A securities? Or the ultra-low interest rates that fueled the boom that this intervention precipitated?

In your linked post, one reply refers to Webers belief that “rising social progress and incomes will lead to expanding government to ensure stability, protection and social welfare”. Does the pressure on governments to provide greater and greater levels of stability, protection and welfare result in debarcles like Iraq and Afganistan? I think it might.

Btw, the link to the Oz was broken. Perhaps it was to this article by Friedman?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB110255773839695254.html?mod=2_1239_1