There’s no such thing as “trickle down” economics

If socialists understood economics, as Hayek said, they wouldn?t be socialists. But, despite the manifest and repeated failures of their economic fantasies, socialist hopes spring eternal. On the rare occasions that they do deign to acknowledge the failures of socialism, its defenders resort to ever-more fanciful excuses and inversions of common sense. Particularly prominent in the topsy-turvy world of socialist excuse-making is refashioning words to say whatever they want them to mean. Quote:

Critics of liberalism and the market economy have made a long-standing habit of inventing terms we would never use to describe ourselves. The most common of these is ?neo-liberal? or ?neo-liberalism,? which appears to mean whatever the critics wish it to mean to describe ideas they don?t like?Another related term is ?trickle-down economics.? End of quote.

This term is bog-standard among leftists. The only problem is: it?s completely bogus. End of quote.

As far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views. Critics of the market should take up the challenge of finding an economist who argues something like ?giving things to group A is a good idea because they will then trickle down to group B.? I submit they will fail in finding one because such a person does not exist. Plus, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the whole argument is silly: why not just give whatever the things are to group B directly and eliminate the middleman? End of quote.

Leftists seem unable to distinguish between free market capitalism and ?crony capitalism? ? which is actually a bowdlerised socialism for the rich. Quote:

There?s no economic argument that claims that policies that themselves only benefit the wealthy directly will somehow ?trickle down? to the poor?

What the critics will find, if they choose to look, is many economists who argue that allowing everyone to pursue all the opportunities they can in the marketplace, with the minimal level of taxation and regulation, will create generalized prosperity. The value of cutting taxes is not just cutting them for higher income groups, but for everyone. End of quote.

The basic problem with socialists is that they apparently believe that there is ?nothing outside the state? (as the socialist Benito Mussolini put it). Quote:

In addition, those of us who support such policies don?t want to ?give? anything to anyone, whether rich or poor. When people talk about tax cuts as ?giving? something to someone, they implicitly start from the premise that everything belongs to government and we are only able to keep some for ourselves by its indulgence of us.

?the only reason government has any revenue in the first place is because it was taken through taxation from those in the private sector who created it. Government doesn?t ?give? us tax refunds. End of quote.

The political left pullulates with grifters who?ve never worked a day in the private sector: students, activists, academics, public servants and union hacks. Because they can?t live without a nanny state, they cannot imagine that anyone else possibly could either. When all your own wealth is suckled from the state, it?s probably natural to assume that everyone else?s somehow ?trickles down? from above, too. Quote:

No serious economist believes the lives of the poor are improved by wealth being transferred to the rich and then ?trickling down? to the poor?Wealth does not ?trickle down? from rich to poor. It is created by all of us when we develop new ideas, skills, and products as either workers or owners of capital?history tells us that the improving standard of living for everyone that results from more economic freedom will be more of a flood than a trickle. End of quote.