Quote
Death_Claw
Let's unpack this.

**********

It is firmly settled that trickle down economics as a general principle does not rise all boats. That’s according to all the actual experts.

^--- Appeal to authority. Completely ignores what I posted.

**this should be the end of the conversation. I ignore what you posted because it is gibberish. Which I suppose I will need to point out.**

How do you wager that elimination of > 50% of the world's poverty "isn't all boats rising"? How can you argue that home size of Americans increasing by > 30% "isn't all boats rising"? How can you argue that prices lowering in just about every consumer product "isn't all boats rising"? You have more, it costs you less and countries abroad are raised out of poverty and in your mind this is all "the concentration of wealth"?

**how are you arguing that those things were caused by trickle down? You have picked a big expanse of time that covers many different policy paradigms, you then globalize the argument bringing in even more complexity. **

As a specific remedy to specific economic conditions tax cuts can increase revenue but those conditions just aren’t there presently.

^--- No mention of the conditions, no mention of where you're referring to, no mention of what the conditions are, no mention of whom is proposing further tax cuts which would be ineffective (I'm not suggesting we cut taxes further for instance)

** you can read up on this from the experts you seem to casually dismiss **

If you cut taxes you essentially give businesses/people an extra pool of money. What they choose to do with that extra pool is what would rise all tides.

IF they commonly chose to invest in expanding operations that would be good. But as we saw with the recent tax cut most chose to put the extra money into investor pockets. This was done through stock but backs frequently and you can find a lot of material both predicting that would happen and verifying it after the fact.

^---- What do the investors then do with this money? If I'm a business who has money which I see no opportunities to spend in a smart way and then I buy back my stock to use up that money and regain ownership over my company - isn't that money flowing from me - who can't use it - to investors - who presumably are free to invest it elsewhere?

** the challenge is what is defined as “a smart way”. What’s good for capital is not necessarily good for society. **

At the end of the day “trickle down” economics is not meant to rise the tide. It’s meant to consolidate wealth and the accompanying power.

^---- Appeal to emotion and not only that but your own example - a company buying back its own stock - is an example of the money diffusing away from a central location (the company) into more hands.

**power consolidation is the goal and outcome of the application of trickle down. It’s literally moving resources from a decision making body that is intrinsically tied to society by the government process to private groups and individuals. And it’s a relatively small group.