Trickle-Down Economics Redux - Selamat datang di blog Yulia Webs !!, Info kali ini adalah tentang Trickle-Down Economics Redux !! Semoga tulisan singkat dengan kategori
capitalism !!
deregulation !!
economics !!
grover norquist !!
korea !!
milton friedman !!
obama !!
pope !!
pope francis !!
reaganomics !!
regulations !!
straw man arguments !!
tax cuts !!
thomas sowell !!
trickle down !!
trickle-down !! ini bermanfaat bagi anda yang membutuhkan. Dan untuk anda yang baru berkunjung kenal dengan blog sederhana ini, Jangan lupa ikut menyebarluaskan postingan bertema Trickle-Down Economics Redux ini ke social media anda, Semoga rezeki berlimpah ikut di permudahkan sang khalik yang maha kuasa, Selengkapnya lansung lihat infonya dibawah -->
The Straw Man Argument is a type of argument that is used to misrepresent someone else's argument, by way of exaggeration or misrepresentation or complete fabrication, with the intention of making the other person's argument easier to attack. It is a dishonest method that almost always undermines rational debate.
As such, almost everyone hates this form of argument. However, many people still resort to this kind of argument on a daily basis – some deliberately, while others unknowingly. And one of the most prominent Straw Man Arguments that have been used so excessively that many people have come to accept the Straw Man as gospel truth is the concept of Trickle-Down Economics.
 |
| Image Source |
It is very easy to find arguments against trickle-down economics.
President Obama referred to it as “thinly veiled Social Darwinism.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren said that trickle-down economics “devastatedU.S. workers while propping up the wealthy.”
Pope Francis pontificated against it, calling it a “a crude and naïvetrust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
(I am not sure if Pope Francis is the right person to talk about naïveté or the idiocy of faith. See here and here.)
(I am not sure if Pope Francis is the right person to talk about naïveté or the idiocy of faith. See here and here.)
Economists have argued against it, too. For example, Paul Krugman said that trickle-down economics is “being nice to the wealthy and cruel to the poor.” And Robert Reich says that it is one of the “big lies” conservatives promise voters.
The OECDreleased a report that said that “the benefits of growth do not automatically trickle down across society.”
Trickle-down economics has also been attacked and criticized by thinkers, academics, politicians, activists, and journalists in Korea as well (see here, here, here, here, here, and here).
The case against trickle-down economics is clear. It is also clear that it has some very powerful enemies.
 |
| Not a friendly face in sight... Image Source |
But who actually supports trickle-down economics? Who is actually championing giving more to the rich? The answer is “No one.”
As I already said in a previous post:
Trickle-Down Economics does not actually exist. It is a lie. “Trickle-Down Economics” was a phrase that was devised in the United States in the 1980s when the Democratic Party needed a a catchy zinger to attack President Reagan's economic policy. The phrase was a remarkable political slogan as it painted Reagan and other advocates of tax reduction as sycophants who had all been bought and paid for by greedy billionaires at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
One of the most prolific economists of our time, Thomas Sowell, once challengedanybody “to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this “trickle-down” theory.”
To date, no one has ever adequately answered that challenge.
Quoting Thomas Sowell again:
Let’s do something completely unexpected: Let's stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we “give” something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place.
 |
| Image Source |
Those who advocate lower taxes, of which I am one, have never made their case by supporting the idea of transferring wealth from the masses to the rich. Rather, they emphasize the creation of additional wealth and jobs when businesses are not hampered by burdensome regulations and steep taxes.
However, even that is only half of the argument. Those who champion lower taxes do not support lowering taxes only for the rich, but also for everyone else. Crazy as it may sound, no free market capitalist has ever claimed that society would become wealthier because the rich would spend more. Rather, they argue – correctly – that tax cuts in general would stimulate the economy. That is because lowering taxes is based on the idea that if the government lowers taxes, the people – both rich and poor – will have more of their own money and will, therefore, tend to engage in more economic activity.
What is undeniable is that reducing taxes does help the rich more than it helps the poor. However, that is incidental. After all, the rich pay far morethan their “fair share”of taxes. Therefore, it becomes all too easy to caricature any tax cut as “tax cuts for the rich.”
Tax cuts might help the rich more, but it also helps the poor. After all, there are only four ways to spend money:
- Spend your own money on yourself.
- Spend your own money on somebody else.
- Spend somebody else’s money on yourself.
- Spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.
Therefore, the phrases “trickle-down economics” and “tax cuts for the rich” are nothing more than the inventions of a desperate political mind that did not have the ability to debate the merits of an opposing viewpoint. After all, what easier way can there be to “win” a debate than to invent a viewpoint that no one holds, attack thatviewpoint, and then claim intellectual victory?
This is not to say that there is no need for a real debate about which policies are needed in order to promote economic growth. With all due respect to Grover Norquist, God knows that lowering marginal tax rates alone is not a panacea (see here and here). That debate is badly needed. Unfortunately, however, demagogues are far too busy trying to slay the imaginary “trickle-down” dragon.
This is not to say that there is no need for a real debate about which policies are needed in order to promote economic growth. With all due respect to Grover Norquist, God knows that lowering marginal tax rates alone is not a panacea (see here and here). That debate is badly needed. Unfortunately, however, demagogues are far too busy trying to slay the imaginary “trickle-down” dragon.
 |
| Image Source |
Demikianlah Artikel Trickle-Down Economics Redux, Semoga dengan adanya artikel singkat seperti Informasi postingan Trickle-Down Economics Redux ini, Anda benar benar sudah menemukan artikel yang sedang anda butuhkan Sekarang. Jangan lupa untuk menyebarluaskan informasi Trickle-Down Economics Redux ini untuk orang orang terdekat anda, Bagikan infonya melalui fasilitas layanan Share Facebook maupun Twitter yang tersedia di situs ini.
