Summations Only

Well obviously trickle down happens in the sense that rich people spend money and it ends up in the hands of the less wealthy.Equally obvious is that trickle up happens because less wealthy people buy things that make the profits that pay the CEO's salaries.But what does any of this indisputably happening have to do with what works? You don't need to know the details of the economic situation in the UK to recognise the policies I describe as being directly derived from trickle down economic theory. The same sort of policies president Obama was talking about when he said "It doesn't work, it has never worked". I would suggest that any lowering of taxes done to stimulate the economy should focus on lowering them for the majority in an effort to boost depressed demand. The exact opposite of what my government has done. If increased prosperity for all is not the measure of success by which we judge economic policies whose primary claim is that they will benefit all - What is? How do you think we should assess whether trickle down policies work or not? If you want to start a thread "Does Keynesian economics work?" I'll gladly take part. I might even start it myself. But the question here is (and despite your multiple attempts to change it - remains) : Does trickle down economics work?This we can answer based on the available data. Here is some more of that data: Of every 100 rise in Britain’s national income since 1977, the bottom 50% of the population received 12. Meanwhile, the top 0.1% wealthiest received a 14 share.If this is the result of "trickle down" economics what the fuck would "accumulate at the top" economics look like?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Exactly.Advocacy of trickle down economics only makes sense if one thinks that all of this increased productivity can be attributed to the richest and that the rest of us are simply lucky to see any of it.The whole thing rests on the ridiculous notion that the wealthiest constitute some sort of innovative, entrepreneurial elite without whom the rest of us would simply be unable to produce any growth at all. We should be grateful we get a 20% income rise no matter how much more productive we apparently are.And in recent times it is many of the the wealthiest (the top financiers) that have destroyed wealth rather than created it.If the data available shows wealth trickling down then what on Earth would the results of "accumulate at the top economics" look like?

Everyone who ever buys things pays taxes.Sales taxes on goods and services. Even children.

Is that your idea of an counter argument to the economic fact that those on minimum wage have seen their real incomes drop rather than increase? Simply put the GDP of the US is everything produced by all the people and all the companies in the US. Per capita simply means per person. So it is a measure of how much is being produced per person. Productivity per person increases.
The incomes of the richest rise in line with that growth.
This incomes of the other 95% don't.Therefore the graph tells you that the proceeds of economic growth are not trickling down. They are accumulating at the top.OR we could consider the UK data which lays it out the same phenomenon more explicitly: Of every 100 rise in Britain’s national income since 1977, the bottom 50% of the population received 12. Meanwhile, the top 0.1% wealthiest received a 14 share.AGAIN the proceeds of economic growth are not trickling down. They are accumulating at the top.Is that clearer?

It gets hotter = GDP per capita rises.
The incomes of the top 5% richest rise = Rich people get warmer
The incomes of the 95% majority rise = Everyone else gets warmer too.Conclusion that wealth has trickled down = Conclusion that everyone getting warmer is the result of the rich getting warmer (trickle down warmth)

Did you really think that I meant every individual person is now producing a 100% more than they were 30 years ago? Well duh!!Average GDP per person has risen significantly and yet almost all of that has gone into the pockets of the rich.What exactly has trickled down? Over a period of time you increase your productivity by 100%
As a result of this increased productivity you receive < 20% increase in income. Do you:A) Ask yourself who is benefitting from your increased productivity?
B) Thank the rich for trickling down a 20% increase in your income? See Message 61Are you fucking serious? No. Of course it wouldn't. That's just mental.

I really don't know how to respond to the absurdity of CS's question here.Is he talking a different language or is he just insane?

It would be when the top going up causes the bottom to go up. Obviously. The wealth of the whole nation rose. The incomes of the rich rose considerably (the richer the faster). The incomes of the rest not so much (the poorer the less and the very poorest on minimum wage went backwards). That is what the graph shows. So what exactly has trickled down?Do you think the productivity of the rich outstripped that of everybody else to the same extent that their income did? What exactly do you think has trickled down? Dr A's analogy was intended to highlight the stupidity of you assuming that everything rising = some sort of validation for trickle down economics. You seem to be assuming that the rich rising causes the other rises. Do you think that is the case? Why don't you show me where the trickle down effect is in the economic data we have?

Just to make sure that we are now talking the same language can you answer the following:1) What do you think the term "trickle down economics" refers to in terms of the sort of policies it incorporates?2) What claims do the proponents of trickle down economics make about the benefits of the policies they advocate?3) How do you think we can measure the success or failure of any economic policy in the absence of duplicate economies on which we can conduct randomised double blind trials to show definitively which economic policies work and which don't (which obviously is not an option available to us)?I'm happy to answer these questions myself. And I think they are key to deciding both whether it is possible to answer the question of whether or not trickle down economics works and whether we can, on the data available, answer that question.

I found the UK data I raised in Message 61. I also found lots and lots and lots of verification of the US data shown in the main graph under discussion. Data which shows that the richer one is the more one has benefited from increased productivity and the poorer one is the less benefit has been accrued (to the point that the incomes of the very least wealthy have actually gone backwards despite economic growth).All of which runs counter to the claims of trickle down economics.I would absolutely love some data from other countries - But it isn't easy to find on the internet as far as I can see.In general - I often start out in thread asking awkward questions of people I basically agree with on the subject in question. It is my way of (at least partially) ensuring I am not just engaging in blind confirmation bias. If those I agree with can competently answer the questions I think might scupper my own advocacy of the same position then I am on surer footing. If they can't - Well then maybe those questions should cause me to question my own position or at least research it further.I know I can seem quite stubborn, strident, unrelenting, unforgiving etc, etc.etc. but I genuinely do use EvC as a method of challenging my own views and preconceptions. I wouldn't participate if it didn't serve that purpose....Whether anyone believes that or not.

What do you think the main prediction of trickle down economics is?If trickle down economics works then we should expect to see.......?What? In your view.

The benefit of what?Productivity per person has increased by about a 100% yet for almost all in society incomes have risen only a small fraction of that (sub 20% on average)Only for the wealthiest have there been increases in income which are remotely comparable to the increase in average productivity.Unless you think the wealthy are almost exclusively responsible for this increased productivity how n Earth can you conclude that any trickle down has happened?If the average worker has increased his productivity by 100% but only seen an increase in income of 20% he hasn't experienced trickle down has he? If anything he has experienced trickle up as the wealthiest siphon off the fruits of his increased productivity. Are you assuming that ALL of the increased productivity is due to the wealthiest and that anybody else's increases in income are the result of trickle down?That's what it look like.......

I think Percy and CS have been beguiled by the fact that there are a series of rising lines. And as long as all the lines are rising they seem to have concluded that the other lines are rising because the line for the rich is rising.But a 100% increase in productivity for a sub 20% increase in income doesn't sound like trickle down to me. The only way to conclude that trickle down has occurred is to assume that all (or nearly all) the growth is due to the rich and that the rest of society is lucky to see any benefit at all.It's nonsense.

So we all agree that there are numerous causes of increased productivity.Yet the evidence conclusively shows that it is the wealthiest rather than anyone else who have benefited most significantly from that increased productivity.If the wealthiest have benefited from increases in national productivity in a way that is deeply disproportionate to their contribution to that increased national productivity - Then what exactly is it that has trickled down?If you increase your productivity by 100% and receive a 20% increase in income do you:A) Thank the wealthy for trickling down their wealth to you?
B) Ask yourself where the fruits of your increased productivity have gone?I put it to you that in terms of increased productivity Vs increased benefit the situation over the last 30 years or so is trickle up rather than trickle down. That's what the data shows.

That is a cop-out.I want to verify that we are talking about the same economic policies. I am not interested in verifying that we are reading the same Wiki articles.Can you give specific examples of policies that have been implemented that you consider to be examples of "trickle down economics"...?I have already given examples of recent UK policies. Do you agree that the examples I have provided constitute "trickle down economics" in action...?We wouldn't want to leave anyone the opportunity to slice their terms so narrowly (or widely) that discussion becomes meaningless.....Would we?