Pejorative use of ‘trickle down exonomics’
risk free return 21 Sep 22 13:37
Reply |

LTPM has not used this phrase. She has merely emphasized it is more important to grow the total cake rather than focus on redistribution of the existing cake. Most non-warped individuals (noting this description doesn’t describe many roffers) would see this as a perfectly sensible and laudable aim. 

She hasn't even used the policy. 

Higher earners are still paying Gordon Brown's rates of tax. Lower earners are still paying the much reduced Tory rates of tax.

growing the economy = good

everyone getting richer = good

rich people getting richer and middle/poor people stagnating/ getting poorer = bad, so bad in fact that it is how communism happens and we know that doesn't end well for anyone

equality and fairness being sacrificed so that an out of steam political party that has squandered 12 years of unchecked power = bad

what a lovely 5th biggest economy we have made that we carefully redefine what poverty is instead of fighting it 

the absolute here is your absolute simpery 

Cakes don't grow. They are the size you baked them. That depends on the ingredients you used. In this case the ingredients are 12 years of austerity and 4 years of Brexit anxiety followed by 2 years of Brexit reality. That cake is fooking small, dude, and almost entirely without flavour.

Let's talk about reality, rather than (heh) half-baked analogies. Liz Truss couldn't grow the economy if her life depended on it. She hasn't a clue. She's merely parroting shit that she's heard bandied around over a dozen years in politics. Trickle down economics doesn't work. It's been tried for forty years now with not a shred of positive evidence. 

She talks of making the UK 'successful'. 

Depends on your measure of success. I don't believe a country is 'successful' at all if people who live there all their lives are crying with misery because they can't afford the essentials - food, water, warmth, shelter, health.

A successful country provides all those things and flat-screen TVs, dining out and the ability to travel inexpensively 200 miles to see your inlaws.

Sumo, are you against any growth unless it’s ‘inclusive’? (As someone put it on the radio earlier) 

it’s nonsense. Simply borne from the left wing standpoint of ‘all must suffer equally’

risk free return21 Sep 22 14:42

Sumo, are you against any growth unless it’s ‘inclusive’? (As someone put it on the radio earlier) 

________________________________________________________________________

okay, so you advocate growth as an end in itself, if it makes more than 1 person better off then okay but not something we should strive for

I think we all knew that

I, think growth is inevitable, I don't think it can be stopped, I think people want more and can't be stopped wanting more

I think the job of government, if you are going to have a society and you want that society to be stable in the long term, is to balance the people who have massive advantages against those who are struggling with a bad hand to ensure that everyone feels like they have a stake in the society and that there is opportunity open to them and there is a better future if they keep moving forward

clearly this has not been happening for the past 10 years or the country and the internet would not look the way it does 

who cares, “trickle down truss” is the perfect lampooning nickname 4 her. it’s got the right balance of flavour between mockery 4 her faux thatcherite tub thumping, her cheap sloganeering and a little bit of euphemism

it works well, like “call me dave”/“pig head fooker” or “tmpm” there’s just something so right about it

The US constantly grows the cake but along with the UK likes to leave the have nots behind, and the Tories, for all their BS, have funded their stints in power by gifting state assets and money to their donor chums - oil, housing, utilities, infra i.e. taking away state income from people, not by some amazing free market theory. Look @ Trusstypetools' favourite city - Singapore. efficient state healthcare and social housing and excellent state funded education. These bellends have abandoned an entire cohort of school pupils, but claim if we just give a bit more money to banks and loosen corporate taxation some more it'll all be fine (they will be keeping the 20% VAT the Tories imposed on us, the lifetime allowance, the withdrawals of child benefit, the non-inflation aligned bandings, the massively increased SDLT take to give to the fogies who cost us all £300bn in COVID defences. 

They have imposed services trade barriers on exports to our closest market, hampered exports of goods, encouraged overseas branches to be set-up, discouraged tertiary education with financial costs, and generally done fook all for 6 years while they dogmatically pursued Brexit. Their economics should be called trickle down economics pejoratively as they are the work of drooling simpletons largely with silver spoons in their mouths and no concept of actual work. 

risk free return21 Sep 22 14:56

Is your word salad a yes or a no? It’s a pretty simple question. 

_________________________________________________________

I'm not audible

It's not really worth asking for a genuine answer risky. As your P notes, they don't really believe this is trickle down economics, it's just pejorative.

It's probably not a bad thing that they are trying this on though, because every other lie they've told when they have no persuasive political reasoning on their side, has back fired badly for them. 

 

risky ReplyReport

I have decided to ignore oracle posts from now on

vintage bit of no plat4ming from the alt right; barely a sliver of difference between u and the far left

"We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium-term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy."

https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315#326174629

If growth damages society and the people in society then it’s not good for society

see also

growth at the expense of pollution 

growth at the expense of imminent nuclear winter

Academics have debunked trickle down ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’ ‘increase the size of the cake’ bullsh1t

 

Over and over again.

its a lie which people are savvy to 

"Academics in left wing shocker." 

 

"We've had enough of experts" *

 

*But will reserve the right to invoke the posture of economic expertise via relying on think tanks funded by creepy tycoons to ram through our jolly clever gibberish. 

Luckily there are no tax cuts for the rich Johnny. They will be paying the same rates Gordon Brown set .

 

There have been many tax cuts for the poor though and more are on the way. 

😂 at bradders. ur so gullible, so hoodwinked

there ought 2 b a criminal offence 4 enslaving easily led ppl in2 political tribalism. it’s like those sinister cults in the us where they prey on vulnerable ppl 4 the benefit of a couple of the leaders

Heh at "exonomics" in the thread title.

This is a trademarked term for exponential economics. Sounds like Risky's specialist area.

risk free return21 Sep 22 15:20

Banana, same 1442 question to you as to sumo. Would you rather no growth then?

______________________________________________________________________

you realise you're advocating for no growth 

you're saying growth for 10 % and stagnation for 90% is good and nobody should try to achieve growth for 100% or 90% 

is such a mad position to take Risky

only someone totally partisan and unable to do anything but cheer blindly for their team would even pretend to make this argument 

seriously, what's the excuse? you'r only following orders? from Truss? 

 

you'r only following orders?

I thought the left were pretending they'd dealt with all the çunts who rely on antisemitic tropes to make their point.

Liz Truss is great and everyone who doesn’t think so is sexist, this is the first woman prime minister of all time, or at least the first which didn’t look like a man or a corpse or both, and people have the audacity to put her down and treat her badly simply because she probably has a vagina. Shame.

Sumo, you’ve literally just invented the first sentence of your last reply. 
 

to try to answer
 

 I would support 10pc growth in the economy even if it all went in the first instance to the top 1pc. I would not say, because - in the first instance - the Gini coefficient was worse - it would be better for there to be no growth at all 

Risky you gimplord - do you think Norway has no growth? Per a recent FT article, the UK is already massively deregulated compared to other countries, and yet managed to underperform far more than others through COVID and fail to recover. Bozo's "world beating growth" BS was because we had fallen so far.

To have growth, you need a USP that the rest of the world can't replicate. The Tories have underinvested in education and skills for 12 years and made the UK as unwelcoming as possible for those with the shortest distance to travel to invest here and as difficult as possible to get goods and services out of here. Despite them crashing the £, I don't see a glut of businesses setting up here - not because of high taxes, but because our workforce's skills are dwindling, we are at the arse end of Europe and can't offer frictionless trade with our closest neighbours. Only Etonian aunts with massive trust funds and a hard on for the 50s could think this is anything other than a disaster. At a time when the country is fooked, we are proposing to give rich people even more money just in case that helps them crack nuclear fusion or set-up the new Facebook.  

 

Banana, same 1442 question to you as to sumo. Would you rather no growth then?
 

yes. Growth which only accrues benefits to, and consolidates, rentier capitalism and offshore wealth hoarding isn’t good for the U.K. and isn’t good for the citizens of the U.K. 

obviously being a Jersey bean counter’s PA or whatever it is you do you’re no doubt all about the offshore wealth hiding but non-productive rentier hoarding isn’t good for us 5 fingered mainlanders

Banana, I don’t recall haveing expressed any view on Norway. 
 

hotnow, fair enough with your view, but as noted above it is the socialist attitude of ‘all must wallow in the same misery‘. I assume you are against private education and medical care as well. 

Risky - you appear to see the world in a binary way. The world is not like that.

For example a little bit of private education or healthcare is fine but imagine a world where 1% of people have 90% of healthcare facilities allocated to them and not for public use. That isn’t a fair or equitable society and isn’t the kind of place id like to live. So the answer is as always ‘it depends’. 

 Private goods and services are fine if they are available to a large % of the population. If a small % of the population have put a large % of anything behind a velvet rope then you live in an oligarchy and it’s not a society which I would aspire to live in.

A relatively rare what bananaman said.  This government of all the cretins just goes from low to low and it is driving the UK into the ground. There will be no growth (at least not sustainable long term growth). Tax cuts for the rich will just mean even lower investment in education and health for the general population.  Housing costs will continue to rise relative to incomes. Productivity will drop, social mobility will decline and more driven and motivated people (particularly those without family money) will move abroad to seek better opportunities/a better way of life.  

 

Let me guess Hotnow, the little bit of private education and medical care would be for

you, your family and friends, wouldn’t it?

hot now is Diane Abbott AICM fiver

ffs Risky

we know you've watched a how to be Ben Shapiro youtube and missed half the key points

but at this stage we've all seen the Andrew Neil interview and the ridiculous extrapolations of examples to stupid extremes just make you look like a fanatic 

(your 21.41 agreeing with my point that you huffed and stropped with earlier doesn't really help either)

No risky it would be for the richest people. And only to the extent that it didn’t adversely affect the rest of society.

its not rocket science

Hot now, if you’re a uk lawyer, you’re very likely in the top 5pc of uk earners if not the top 3pc…

Anyway you have skilfully changed the conversation into one about education which typically has elastic supply so is usually fine to have a large private market. So well done on the sophistry but education is a red herring. Healthcare or housing are much better examples.

Asset prices increase faster than any trickle down.

A fact missed by the morons who propose it (or perhaps not missed by them or the people who fund them)

It's not a zero-sum game, risky. The economy can easily reduce the suffering of the worst-off without causing any suffering at all to the better off. There may be a bit of mild inconvenience, but to reference a different ROF thread, wondering how you are going to afford private school on an income of quarter of a million is not the same thing as panicking about how you are going to afford school clothes as well as food and warmth.

Hot now if you're a UK lawyer the vast majority of your life is dedicated to enriching a small % of the population in your firm who have put a large % of  that firm and its profits behind a velvet rope